Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified]

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Read the Third time and passed.

MERCANTILE CREDIT BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Industrial Relations Act

Mr. Garden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the extent of union acceptance of the Industrial Relations Act.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): A number of trade unions are using the provisions of the Act and as a result have been able to gain important benefits for their members. I regret that most of the unions affiliated to the TUC have not so far been prepared to do so, though all of them, with the exception of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, are now willing to defend themselves before the National Industrial Relations Court.

Mr. Garden: Is there any truth in the allegation that the Act has led to a falling off in the use of conciliation? What specific proposals has my right hon.

Friend received from the TUC for amending the Act?

Mr. Macmillan: No, there is no truth in the allegation that there has been a falling off in the use of my Department's conciliation facilities. In fact, the number of disputes in which we conciliate has been rising steadily and in 1972 it reached an all-time record. We have received no specific proposals as such from the TUC.

Mr. James Hamilton: As the General Secretary of the TUC has said that if the Government are prepared to consider amendments to the Act put forward by the TUC that might become the basis for a discussion on the economy, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would be receptive to such an approach?

Mr. Macmillan: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is willing to discuss any serious proposal for altering the Act. A number of proposals have been put forward publicly in the air but no proposals have been put forward as a basis for discussion.

Mr. Fell: How long will it be before some of the dimwits on the Opposition benches realise that when the Prime Minister has told the House time and again that he is prepared to discuss anything at all that the TUC wants to discuss, he is prepared to do so? How often must the Prime Minister repeat that assurance before unwilling hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side are prepared to believe it?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that is a question for me. I see some hope in the fact that Mr. Scanlon appears to be less adamant than he was before about the possiblity of amending the Act.

Mr. Prentice: Does the Secretary of State accept that the recent report of the Commission on Industrial Relations, although couched quite properly in neutral language, confirms that the Government's expectations of the results arising from the Act have been completely unfulfilled? Now that it is universally recognised that the Act has been a disastrous failure, is it good enough for Ministers to say repeatedly that they will consider other people's suggestions for amendment? As the Government inflicted this damage on the country, is


it not up to them to produce their proposals for amending the Act or, better still, for repealing it?

Mr. Macmillan: We have had a large number of statements from the unions saying that they do not like this shoe but they have not yet told us precisely where it pinches. That is probably the first step, which I hope we shall be able to discuss before long. The CIR made a factual report on the Act. One reason which the CIR noted for the shortcomings in the operation of the Act is that a large number of unions are not getting the advantages, for example, of the agency shops, and have not been able to do what the National Union of Bank Employees and the National Union of Seamen have done by using the Act to their advantage.

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received calling for a review of the working of the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the state of his consideration of the future of the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As I have said on a number of occasisons, I am prepared to consider any constructive proposals for improving the operation of the Act. I have recently received suggestions from the National and Local Government Officers Association and the National Union of Bank Employees.

Mr. Cox: I note the Secretary of State's reply. Is he not fully aware that it is the view of millions of people that the Industrial Relations Act is now the greatest failure of all the supposed policies introduced by the present Government and that even the Government themselves are scared to implement the Act, as has been shown by recent disputes when they could have sought a ballot of workers involved but did not do so? Is it not the Minister's responsibility to announce his proposals on the Act and to seek a meeting with trade union representatives as quickly as possible?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not accept that the Act has in any way been of the order of failure described by the hon. Gentle-

man, nor is it a fact that the Government have been in a position to use the emergency provisions and have not done so. In recent disputes, as the hon. Gentleman will discover if he studies the wording of the relevant provisions, the Government were not in a position to use the emergency provision. A great deal of publicity has been focussed on a relatively small number of cases. The Industrial Relatitons Court has had a number of successes in which there has been little publicity. There have been 30 complaints about unfair industrial practices which were disposed of by the court by the end of January; 20 were withdrawn following a settlement and only 10 had to be decided by the court. It was never envisaged that the working of the Industrial Relations Act should be judged by the number of cases which came to the court.

Mr. McCrindle: It is not true to say, however, that the present state of the Industrial Relations Act is rather unsatisfactory to all concerned? 1 understand my right hon. Friend's point that he is awaiting suggestions from the trade unions, but could he assist the situation by at least drawing up a list of those aspects of the Act which are immutable and those which are negotiable and by suggesting that a meeting takes place between himself and the CBI and TUC on the basis of such a list?

Mr. Macmillan: I would not wish to follow a process which sought to lay down what was immutable in the Act. The only point which is immutable is a point which has been rejected by many trade unions, namely, that the whole of our industrial relations system should be operated within a framework of law. That is immutable. We are willing, as we have made plain, to discuss with the unions and the employers the whole operation of the Act with a view to improving it.

Mr. Sillars: Will the Secretary of State say whether we have just witnessed a change of Government policy? When the legislation was originally conceived and laid before the House, the former Secretary of State said that there were certain pillars of principle which were immovable in terms of negotiation. Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that he has changed that policy?

Mr. Macmillan: I was seeking to compress my right hon. Friend's remarks and to try to bring them within the one immutable thing which comprises a number of facets of the Act—namely, that the operation of the Act should be subject to the framework of the law. There are various aspects of the Act which, because of that consideration, can be altered only marginally or in ways which would not violate that principle.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is it not time that the Industrial Relations Act ceased to be a political football, at least in this House? It is within the recollection of many hon. Members that very similar legislation was thought to be necessary by the Labour Government, which is some confirmation that there is an economic need for something on those lines? Has not the time come when the Opposition should encourage the trade unions to accept my right hon. Friend's invitation to meet him instead of putting obstacles in the way for narrow party political propaganda reasons?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is now developing a fair measure of acceptance that something of the nature of the Industrial Relations Act is necessary. That has been a movement by some unions which until now have been saying that there is no room for the framework of law in the conduct of industiral relations. At last we have received even from the most extreme opponents of the Act a realisation that successful industrial relations can be conducted only within the framework of the law.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not clear that from 1906 onwards we had a framework of law which helped us to have better industrial relations than most industrial countries and that when the present Government departed from that framework they were going against the advice of the Donovan Commission and of practically all informed opinion on this subject?
If I may revert to the supplementary question I put on Question No. 1, which has not been answered, what possible justification is there at this stage, now that the failure of the Act is universally recognised—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— for the Government sitting back and saying that they are waiting for the trade

unions and others to tell them what to do? Is it not time that the Government, which produced this mess, came forward with their own answers, their amendments or, better still, their proposals to repeal the Act?

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman tends to take up a somewhat contradictory position. He and his colleagues, when in government, found it necessary to change the legislation and brought forward measures, which they subsequently dropped, which contained penal clauses which are not within the framework of the Industrial Relations Act. He has also been insistent that we should consult before bringing forward suggestions. The Government have said that they will do that. In bringing forward suggestions for the alteration of the Act we will consult and take note of any responsible views and opinions which may be put forward.

Industrial Earnings

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Secretary of State for Employment in which years since 1950 average industrial earnings have risen by more than 8 per cent.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): The regular October surveys show that average weekly earnings of men manual workers aged 21 years and over in manufacturing industry rose by more than 8 per cent. in the 12-month periods ending in October 1951, 1955, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972.

Mr. Cockeram: Does not that make nonsense of the allegations which are repeated frequently by the Labour Party that there has been a fall in living standards under the present Government?

Mr. Chichcster-Clark: It most certainly shows that. From the reply which I have just given, it can be deduced that a serious wage explosion was developing during the latter months of the Labour administration.

Vacancies

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of the ratio of registered unemployed adult males to notified vacancies for adult males in Scotland; and


what is the corresponding figure for Great Britain.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Based on the provisional figures for April, the ratio for Scotland was 91:1 and for Great Britain, 3·3:1. As the hon. Member will know, notified vacancies do not measure the total unsatisfied demand for labour.

Mr. Strand: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those statistics highlight the tragic inequality which exists between Scotland and some of the more prosperous parts of England in terms of jobs and employment? Further, does he agree as regards Scotland that he should ignore the prophets who are advocating that we should now deflate the economy? Does he agree that instead of having discussions about phasing out the regional employment premium, he should be thinking of new and more radical and direct measures to try to give Scotland and other deprived regions a greater share of the present industrial expansion?

Mr. Smith: The Industry Act is a direct measure to help difficult areas such as Scotland. We must remember that the trend of unemployment was upward during Labour's period of office. In March 1966 the seasonally-adjusted figure for Scotland was 53,500 and the rate was 2·4 per cent. In June 1970 the seasonally-adjusted figure was 87,500 and the rate was 4 per cent. The seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in Scotland has fallen from 6·6 per cent. a year ago to 4·9 per cent. this month. That is a decrease of 26 per cent. The trend is very much in the right direction.

Mr. Marten: What has been the actual increase in the number of unfilled vacancies over the last year?

Mr. Smith: Again, there is a very good position. The number of vacancies for men remaining unfilled in April was up by almost 300 per cent. compared with over a year ago.

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will give the latest figures for unemployment and unfilled vacancies, respectively, in England and Wales.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Based on the provisional figures for 9th April there were 576,327 people unemployed in England and Wales and 324,595 unfilled vacancies. The vacancy figure relates only to notified vacancies remaining unfilled and, as my hon. Friend will know, does not measure the total unsatisfied demand for labour.

Mr. Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging reply, which is indicative of the success of the Government's policies. What were the comparable figures a year ago?

Mr. Smith: The rapid fall in unemployment during the past year and the continued rise in the level of unfilled notified vacancies over an even longer period are clear indications of the success of the Government's measures to stimulate demand. There has been a substantial reduction in unemployment over the past year. A sustained and continuing drop in unemployment has been achieved this year, despite many predictions made by Labour Members.

Mr. McBride: The unemployment rate in Wales is much higher than the national average. What steps are being taken to provide alternative employment speedily for the people who will be made redundant in the steel industry, bearing in mind the paltry number of jobs which have been realised under the Industry Act?

Mr. Smith: There will obviously be regional imbalances in employment for some time, but the general trend has been and continues to be very encouraging. There are problems in Wales, but the Industry Act has helped. We have set up various task forces to help deal with the problem of steel redundancies. The trend continues to be in the right direction and I hope that it will be maintained.

Mr. Waddington: Is it not a fact that in some parts of the country, including assisted areas like North-East Lancashire, far from unemployment being the problem, the problem is of some firms being starved for labour and crying out for it? Many Labour Members have talked today about unemployment in Scotland. Has my hon. Friend any useful suggestions on how we can get some of the


Scotsmen concerned to come down to North-East Lancashire? We will give them a reasonable welcome.

Mr. Smith: The Department of Employment has done a great deal in the past three years to encourage mobility of labour to different parts of the country. This is increasing all the time. It is a matter of individual choice. It is a little premature to talk about overall shortages of labour, but the Government's expanded training scheme and improved employment facilities are helping towards the proper redeployment of Labour.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Minister boasts of the Government's success in having brought the unemployment figures for England and Wales down from what they were a year ago to 576,000-odd. Is he aware that that total is 50,000 higher than it was for the whole of Great Britain when his Government took office?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir, but what the hon. Gentleman does not tell the House is that the graph shows a consistent rise from the time the Labour Government were in power. Certainly it continued upwards when we took office, but now it is coming down dramatically, something which did not happen during the hon. Gentleman's time in office.

Wage Settlements

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many wage settlements known to the Department have been made within the £1 plus 4 per cent. prescribed for stage 2 of the counter-inflation policy; and how many people are covered by them.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: One hundred and seven settlements involving some 2·9 million workers are apparently within the limits of £1 per week plus 4 per cent. plus any additional increases permissible under stage 2 of the policy. But the application of the stage 2 limits is a matter for the Pay Board and the figures given are subject to the views of the board.

Mr. Redmond: Surely this matter is too important to leave the figures to the views of the Pay Board. Cannot we have the full figures published and made widely known? In view of the obvious acceptance of stage 2 by a large number

of workers, does my right hon. Friend care to comment on today's strike?

Mr. Macmillan: The fact that the figures must come from the Pay Board derives from the fact that Parliament has given the Pay Board the responsibility of ensuring that the code is implemented. Therefore prior notification, and notification of settlements already reached, according to the size of the firm concerned, is made to the Pay Board. The Pay Board, as the House will know, will make a quarterly report which will be available to the House and which will be available for discussion. I think my hon. Friend can take these figures as being as accurate as is possible to get.
The strike that is taking place today is, as those who are members of the trade unions concerned have said, a political demonstration of disapproval of a policy rather than industrial action to obtain an industrial end.

Equal Pay

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in consultations on stage 3 of the counter-inflationary policy, he will seek to ensure that provision is made for accelerating progress towards the implementation of equal pay.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider referring problems that arise over implementation of equal pay to the Pay Board.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The January White Paper on stage 2 of the counter-inflation programme re-emphasised the Government's commitment to secure implementation of the Equal Pay Act by 29th December 1975, as the Act requires, and this will be reflected in our proposals for stage 3. The Office of Manpower Economics reported in August 1972 on progress towards equal pay and the problems being encountered, and my right hon. Friend is currently considering what further arrangements should be made to keep the position under review.

Mr. Loveridge: I am glad to hear that. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that in 1971 women's earnings as a percentage of men's average hourly earnings were, in the United Kingdom, only 59 per cent.


while in France, Italy and West Germany they varied from 70 per cent. to 77 per cent? Does he agree that the sooner the British women can earn the same share as a Eurowoman, the better?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not think I need comment on my hon. Friend's supplementary question except to agree with it.

Disabled Persons

Sir R. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects his review of the quota scheme for the employment of disabled people to be completed.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My Department will publish a consultative document on the future of the quota scheme later this month.

Sir R. Russell: What is the cause of the delay? Is not it such an important matter that it should be done as speedily as possible?

Mr. Smith: There is no delay. There has been, as my hon. Friend probably knows, a thorough review of all the disablement services provided by the Department of Employment. This is a very important and deeply-thought-out document. It has taken time to prepare but it will be published very shortly. I think my hon. Friend will find that it has within it some very interesting reading.

Mr. William Hannan: Will the hon. Gentleman bear his own answer in mind when we discuss the provisions of the Employment and Training Bill in Committee?

Mr. Smith: Yes. Certainly I look forward to discussing the matter with the hon. Gentleman on the right occasion.

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many strikes have taken place in 1973 to the latest available date; and what are the figures for 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972.

Mr. Adam Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what have been the number of working days lost through industrial disputes this year up to the latest available date, compared with the same period for 1972.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: As the reply consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate this in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Montgomery: Will my hon. Friend estimate what effect today's silly strike will have on the figures for lost days of work for this year?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Quite clearly I cannot estimate what effect today's silly strike, as my hon. Friend calls it, will have. I can tell him that the number of work days lost this year, to which hon. Members attach the greatest importance, shows a percentage decrease in 1973 in the first quarter over the 1972 first quarter of 82 per cent.

Mr. William Price: Will the Minister set alongside the table the number of working days lost during the first two and a half years of his Government compared with the number of working days lost during the first two and a half years of the previous Government?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I think that the hon. Gentleman should table a Question about that. No doubt he will. As he is interested in the number of working days lost, he must remember that the increase did not start in 1970 but began in 1968. While it is true that the number has increased by 400 per cent., perhaps he should remember that rather over half that increase took place in 1968–70 and rather under half from 1970–72.

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend's figures relating to the number of working days lost show that the rate this year is one-fifth of what it was last year. Is not that evidence of the success of the Governments' handling of industrial relations? Does it not show that the majority of people, including the majority of trade unionists, are fed up with the use of the strike as the first rather than the last resort?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would have been interesting, had there been a ballot of the Parliamentary Labour Party, to see whether Labour Members approved of the strike taking place today.

Mr. Concannon: From 1926 to 1972 the coal industry figures were always left out of the statistics. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman's reply would be like if he took the coal industry's strike out of


last year's figures and compared them with this year's figures in the way that was formerly done.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The figures have been given on previous occasions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know, no doubt he will table a Question to that effect.

Sir P. Bryan: When the next set of figures of lost working days is published, will my hon. Friend point out how many of those days lost are due to strikes which have been approved and backed by the official Opposition?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: It is always rather difficult to determine whether strikes are being backed by the official Opposition. It is just as difficult, looking at the attendance here this afternoon, to see whether today's strike has been approved and backed by the official Opposition.

Mr. Prentice: Would it not be a fair description of questions on this topic from Conservative back benchers and previous exercises during Question Time to say that they are engaged in a double-edged propaganda exercise under which, if strikes increase, they blame the unions, and if they decrease they claim credit for the Government? As for today's events, have not the Government the unique distinction of being the first Government in modern times to carry out a policy so outrageously unfair as to provoke the kind of action which is taking place today?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I am not concerned with propaganda. The right hon. Gentleman should find out whether his own friends are backing the strike today, and he might also look at the vote of the National Executive of the Labour Party in which it was possible to abstain.

Following is the information:—

STOPPAGES OF WORK DUE TO INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES: UNITED KINGDOM


Period 1st January to 31st March
Stoppages beginning in period
Working days lost in stoppages in progress in period


1969
718
1,552,000


1970
1,212
2,201,000


1971
627
9,496,000


1972
519
12,523,000


1973 (provisional)
678
2,206,000


Working days lost: percentage decrease 1973 (first quarter) over 1972 (first quarter):—82.

Building Trade

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies for skilled building trade workers existed at the latest available date.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies for skilled building trade workers exist in the South Hampshire area including Southampton and Portsmouth.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an occupational analysis of vacancies for men in the construction industry, both nationally and in South Hampshire. The totals are, respectively, 24, 111 and 709.

Mr. Hardy: Since the shortage is serious and seems likely to continue, will the hon. Gentleman urgently ensure that training facilities are properly and fully utilised? Does he agree that the existence of the lump is an aggravation since it discourages apprenticeship? Will he deal with that problem?

Mr. Smith: I note what the hon. Gentleman says on the latter point, and the matter is under consideration. As regards training, we have significantly increased the number of training places for construction skills in Government training centres. The total rose from 2,940 a year ago to 3,470 in March 1973. We must do everything possible to fill them because there are regional imbalances in vacancies in the construction industry.

Mr. Idris Owen: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation in the construction industry in terms of labour is so critical that any new project can be staffed only as a result of poaching and that such poaching is being carried out at a rate far in excess of any figures being dealt with in the counter-inflation policy? Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation demands an urgent crash programme of training for a period of years to bring forward apprentices to cope with the situation?

Mr. Smith: These are matters which we have to have under consideration. Ministers in my Department and also


Ministers in the Department of the Environment are studying means of stepping up the supply of skilled construction labour. It is important that there should be adequate numbers of people to fill the expansion that is now taking place in the building industry.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the second part of the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy)? Is he aware that the practice of the lump is responsible for the serious shortage of skilled building workers because it discourages training? Could he say more on this point?

Mr. Smith: No, I cannot at present, but it is a matter which requires consideration. It will be debated shortly on a Bill sponsored by an Opposition Member, and this may provide an opportunity for the matter to be ventilated.

Mr. Marten: What is the present average weekly take-home pay of these workers?

Mr. Smith: I cannot answer that question without notice. Because of shortages of labour in some areas, take-home pay is very high indeed. In other regions take-home pay is comparatively modest. This causes difficulties in terms of transferring construction workers from one region to another.

Following is the information:

Unfilled Vacancies Nationally


Carpenters and joiners (construction sites and maintenance)
4,462


Electricians (installation and maintenance), premises and ships
1,555


Cable jointers and linesmen
25


Plumbers, pipe fitters
1,165


Heating and ventilating engineering fitters
253


Gas fitters
50


Steel erectors
29


Scaffolders/stagers
108


Steel benders, bar benders and fixers
97


Painters and decorators
1,140


Bricklayers
3,567


Fixer/walling masons
145


Plasterers
968


Floor and wall tilers, terrazzo workers
126


Roofers and slaters
216


Glaziers
85


Asphalt and bitumen road surfacers
23


Other roadmen
128


Concrete erectors /assemblers
3


Concrete leyellers/screeders
43


General builders
241


Mains and service layers and pipe iointers (gas, water, drainage, oil)
156

Unfilled Vacancies Nationally


Mechanical plant drivers/operators (earth moving and civil engineering)
378


Crane drivers/operators
61


Fork lift and other mechanical truck drivers /operators
24


All other occupations
9,063


Total vacancies notified in the construction industry
24,111


The statistics relate only to notified vacancies remaining unfilled and do not purport to measure the total unsatisfied demand for labour.

Unfilled Vacancies in South Hampshire


Carpenters and joiners (construction sites and maintenance)
85


Electricians (installation and maintenance) premises and ships
48


Plumbers, pipe fitters
22


Heating and ventilating engineering fitters
12


Steel erectors
2


Scaffolders/stagers
6


Steel benders, bar benders and fixers
3


Painters and decorators
26


Bricklayers
65


Fixer/walling masons
2


Plasterers
23


Floor and wall tilers, terrazzo workers
1


Roofers and slaters
16


Glaziers
3


Asphalt and bitumen road surfacers
5


Other roadmen
4


General builders
8


Mains and service layers and pipe jointers (gas, water, drainage, oil) 
1


Mechanical plant drivers/operators (earth moving and civil engineering)
12


Crane drivers/operators
4


Fork lift and other mechanical truck drivers/operators
1


All other occupations
360


Total vacancies in the construction industry
709


The statistics relate only to notified vacancies remaining unfilled and do not purport to measure the total unsatisfied demand for labour. They are for the area covered by the Bournemouth, Christchurch, Ringwood, Southampton, Eastleigh, Hythe, Romsey, Wool-ston, Portsmouth, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Petersfield and Lymington employment exchanges.

Willenhall Factory (Accident)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action the Factory Inspectorate is taking about the accident at the Willenhall factory of David Worrall and Company Limited on 2nd April 1973, when one woman was killed and another seriously injured when a rack collapsed.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Factory Inspectorate is investigating this accident very thoroughly and has given the firm advice on safe storage. Other action, including legal proceedings, is being considered.

Mr. Stonehouse: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that this tragic accident draws attention to the squalid and dangerous nineteenth-century conditions in many Black Country factories? What are he and his Department doing to improve those conditions, which require urgent attention?

Mr. Smith: We keep under constant review the activities of the Factory Inspectorate to try to improve and make them more efficient. There are now 671 factory inspectors, which is I think a record. As an experiment we are trying to approach inspection on a more selective basis to have more thorough and in-depth investigations. This was the recommendation of the Committee on Safety and Health at Work. There is a problem with small factories—I do not think they are all squalid—where it is sometimes difficult to get round as often as to the larger factories. We have not overlooked this matter. We are currently trying to find better ways of tackling the problem.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is now eight months since we had the report of the Robens Committee, which sat for two years considering industrial health and safety? I have constantly pressed the Minister for action or for an opportunity to debate the Committee's proposals in this House. So far I have met with a negative response. Is it not obvious that people are being killed and maimed while the Government are doing nothing? Is not this a powerful argument for getting the Robens Report implemented as quickly as possible?

Mr. Smith: It is a gross exaggeration to say that people are being killed and maimed while the Government are doing nothing. They are doing a great deal through the Factory Inspectorate. I appreciate the anxiety about the Robens Report. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement on this matter shortly. The hon. Gentleman knows that the question of a debate is not for me.

Steel Industry

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has made an estimate of the number of redundancies expected in the steel industry in South Yorkshire as a result of the implementation of the White Paper on the future of the steel industry, Command Paper No. 5226.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The final position may well be affected by redeployment and the creation of new jobs and it is therefore not possible at this stage to make an estimate of the number of workpeople likely to become redundant.

Mr. Duffy: Meanwhile the trade unions involved are entertaining the worst possible fears about the number of redundancies. While such an assessment is being produced, will the Minister satisfy himself about retraining facilities and alternative job opportunities? Does he agree that the British Steel Corporation should be invited to accept a formal commitment, as at Ebbw Vale, for job replacement where it has been exclusively responsible for job loss?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter. The last part of his question is not for me. Retraining is important. There are 303 training places available in 18 trades at the Sheffield Government training centre, including 64 in the new annex which was opened towards the end of last month. There are 289 places available in neighbouring colleges of further education and 112 "limited skill" places in employers' establishments. These are almost entirely in spare capacity at BSC establishments. I think that the hon. Gentleman can be reassured about retraining.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that in the Manchester area, where unemployment has almost doubled in the last two and three-quarter years, the closure of Irlam will hit the unemployment situation like a bombshell and will spread throughout the whole Manchester area? All that we have been given is one advance factory the size of a shed. Will the Minister and his colleagues do something to provide jobs in an area which will suffer extremely badly?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I can hardly answer a question about Manchester when I am dealing with one about South Yorkshire. However, I have no doubt that what he has said will be taken into account.

Local Offices (Use for Meetings)

Miss Joan Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Employment which organisations are eligible to use his Department's local offices for meetings out of normal working hours.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: My Department has discretion to extend the use of its premises for occasional meetings of non-official organisations which have a strong affinity with the work of the Department. There is no list of such organisations.

Miss Hall: As this facility came to my knowledge only by chance, I feel that it is not known widely enough by bodies which can use the Department's local offices. I suggest that, with the increasing difficulty of finding such accommodation and with increasing charges, it would be a good idea if more publicity were given to this facility. I suggest as a start that notices should be put up in the Department's offices advertising this facility. At the same time, may I ask my hon. Friend to let us know the charges?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: My hon. Friend is clearly the best advertisement for this facility. I notice that the Keighley employment exchange is used by the Keighley Trades Council and the Keighley branch of the Law Society, so it is not unknown in that area. I understand that charges are made for the attendants who may be necessary, and so on. I should like to look at my hon. Friend's proposition about further publicity. She may have a point there.

Northern Region

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a bi-monthly information sheet showing, for the Northern Region, which industrial and service categories added to their labour forces; by how many; in which redundancies were declared; and how many.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Regional estimates of the numbers of employees in employment analysed by industry are available only in respect of June each year, but my Department is currently conducting nine experiments into the possibility of improving, at local level, the collection and dissemination of labour market intelligence of the kind suggested.

Mr. Horam: Is the Minister aware that at the moment many local newspapers are doing a better job of recording job losses and gains than his Department?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Experiments are now being carried out into the feasibility of getting better labour market intelligence in travel-to-work areas. Hartlepool is the target of this experiment in the hon. Gentleman's area. We will see how it goes, evaluate it and consider whether it is worth extending and repeating elsewhere.

Mr. Dormand: Is it not a fact that the provisions of the Industry Act are not coming up to expectations for the Northern Region as there have been only two allocations since its enactment? Would it not be better if the Department or the Minister gave greater publicity to and took more action under the Act to try to improve matters in the Northern Region?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That is undoubtedly a question for another Department, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I understand that an inquiry is being made into the subject and that it is expected to report quickly. However, the hon. Gentleman should put down his question to the Department of Trade and Industry.

Greenock and Port Glasgow

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage of registered female unemployment in the burghs of Greenock and Port Glasgow at the latest convenient date; what are the comparable Scottish and United Kingdom percentages; and what proposals his Department has to deal with this situation.

Mr. Dudley Smith: On 9th April the unemployment rate for females in the area covered by the Greenock and Port


Glasgow employment exchanges was 7·1 per cent. For Scotland and the United Kingdom the rates were 3·2 per cent. and 1·5 per cent. respectively. The figures are provisional. Officers of my Department will continue to do all they can to help unemployed people to find new jobs.

Dr. Mabon: Does the Minister realise that the area has a female unemployment rate four times the United Kingdom average and twice the Scottish average? Although we have done a great deal to attract jobs in manufacturing industry, what we do not have is clerical work. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends might consider that point when they discuss the Hardman Report.

Mr. Smith: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Female unemployment in his area is not a new problem. Between April 1966 and April 1970 the female unemployment rate rose from 3·1 per cent. to 6·3 per cent. It would be wrong to suggest that Greenock's unemployment problems will be solved very easily or quickly, but the continued expansion now going on through the improvement in the national economy and the substantial assistance given under the Industry Act will help areas like the hon. Gentleman's which are admittedly difficult.

Wool Textile Industry

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in the number of workers in the wool textile industry in the West Riding between June 1970 and the most recent convenient date.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Between June 1970 and June 1971, the latest available date, the numbers decreased by about 15,000.

Mr. Clark: Does not the large fall in the work force in an industry so heavily concentrated in the West Riding show how susceptible labour is in that area when there is a slump in the wool textile industry? Many of the men and women concerned have been made redundant in more than one mill. When the industry is booming, can the Minister introduce a proper redundancy scheme based on service within the industry, as in the case of the docks and coal mines, and not based on the firm?

Mr. Smith: The Wool Textile Industry Economic Development Committee is putting to the Government certain proposals, which are under consideration, for the modernisation of the industry, including the items the hon. Gentleman mentions National estimates indicate that since June 1971 the rate of fall in employment in the industry has been appreciably lower than it was before. Wool textile activity generally has increased substantially over the past six months, so there are encouraging signs.

Mr. Wilkinson: The demand for experienced operatives has been considerable in recent months, and on the distributive side of the trade the demand has been described as hectic by the manager of the Bradford employment exchange. When my hon. Friend considers the Hardman Report, will he ensure that public sector jobs are encouraged in the West Riding, because there is a need for them to broaden the base of our economy?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. These are not directly matters for me, but I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (SPEECH)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made at Avie-more on 8th April 1973 by the Secretary of State for Scotland about the functions of his office represents the views of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Douglas: Would the Prime Minister care to tell the House what his right hon. Friend meant by saying that he was perhaps over-exposed north of the border? Does he think that his right hon. Friend is catering adequately for land use, with particular reference to North Sea oil developments? How does his right hon. Friend justify the appointments he has made to various public boards in Scotland and ensure that the individuals concerned do not use their public knowledge for private gain after they leave the jobs?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was explaining to his audience in that speech the very wide responsibilities that the Secretary of State for Scotland has, at the same time making the point that certain responsibilities—particularly foreign affairs, defence and major economic matters—remain here at Westminster and are questions for the Cabinet.
As for oil and the developments in that regard, the hon. Gentleman, who has studied these matters carefully, will surely agree that the more than 4,000 jobs already gained on projects directly concerned, with another 8,900 jobs coming in the next four years, show the very rapid development that there has been in Scotland in this respect. I see no point in decrying what has already been achieved.
All public appointments are governed by the general rules. I do not think that it helps to make general allegations. If there are specific allegations, I have always instituted an immediate inquiry.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Prime Minister think that there would be a case for transferring ministerial responsibility for the regional development offices in Scotland to the Scottish Office, because Scottish Office Ministers are presumed to have a greater detailed knowledge of the economic needs of Scotland than have the itinerant missionaries from the South, with the best will in the world?

The Prime Minister: The Scottish Office has its own development department, which has always played a vital part in the planning of development in Scotland. When I was Secretary of State for Regional Development in 1963 I examined, and I examined again when I became Prime Minister, whether we should transfer the Department of Trade and Industry responsibility to the Scottish Office. I think that the general conclusion of all Governments has been that that would be only to the loss of Scotland, because the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry has the responsibility gives it a much wider area over which it can operate, to the advantage of Scotland.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is presiding over a far greater

expansion and boom in the Scottish economy than his predecessor did?

The Prime Minister: That is true. One of the very important developments is the development of North-East Scotland. This will be of immense importance to the whole nation, as well as to Scotland.

COUNTER-INFLATIONARY POLICY

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to join future discussions with the CBI and TUC on counter-inflationary policy.

The Prime Minister: The Association of British Chambers of Commerce took part in the consultations on stage 2, and will certainly be invited in due course to take part in similar consultations on stage 3.

Mr. Redmond: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, just as there are workers who are not affiliated to the TUC, so there are many firms which are not members of the CBI? Are not chambers of commerce more representative of the 1¼ million small firms which are of tremendous importance to the economy?

The Prime Minister: It is because chambers of commerce have an important membership and a considerable part in representing small firms that they were consulted in full detail over stage 2. But one of the points that chambers of commerce have made in correspondence with me is that they also represent a considerable number of large firms. They do not wish it to be thought that their only interests are in the very small trader.

Mr. Molloy: Does the Prime Minister agree that it would help all these organisations and the country at large if he now made a statement that he was prepared to abandon his inflationary policies, which have increased rates, rents and the prices of food, clothing and petrol, and saying decisively that he has made a serious error, that his Government have contributed most to the inflationary spiral and that they will do their best to reverse this policy? After all, they have reversed almost everything else that was contained in their election


manifesto. Why not reverse this one as well?

The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he had any points which had merit, I should willingly consider them. But when the hon. Gentleman makes wide-ranging statements containing no element of truth, I find it difficult to accept what he says.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend warmly for his reply to the Question, which I also consider will be very helpful in the future. May I take this opportunity to suggest to my right hon. Friend that, in order to have stability in areas, we are anxiously awaiting publication of the Booz-Allen Report on shipbuilding? Can my right hon. Friend do something about that?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's interest in the Booz-Allen Report is well known. At the moment I cannot give a specific date for action. We shall take it as soon as possible.

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (SPEECH)

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the diamond jubilee convention of the Food Manufacturers' Federation on 2nd April 1973 represented Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that on that occasion the Minister refused to comment on the prediction by the president of the federation that the prices of a number of basic foods would rise between 10 and 30 per cent. over the next year? Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that today's protest against the Government's policies has as much to do with food prices as it has to do with wages? Will the Prime Minister at least concede that the massive increases in food prices which have taken place have nothing to do with increases in wages, and will he assure the House that the Government will look again at the possibility of subsidising key foods as part of their strategy against inflation?

The Prime Minister: As the present estimate is that 85 per cent. of all trade unionists are at work today and that out of a work force of 23 million all but 1·5 million are at work today, the hon. Gentleman's allegation hardly seems to be substantiated.

Mr. William Hamilton: Instead of making squalid party political points, will the Prime Minister address himself to the very serious matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) about food prices? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Lord Watkinson, who was an undistinguished member of a previous Tory Government—

Dame Irene Ward: Distinguished.

Mr. Hamilton: —nevertheless has indicated that it might be advisable for the Government to consider threshold agreements with the trade unions as part of phase 3 of their prices and incomes policy? Will the Prime Minister give the matter serious thought?

The Prime Minister: Not only have we given it serious thought but in the first Chequers proposals put to the TUC and the CBI, and published, threshold agreements were a specific offer to both. The proposal was £2 across the board leading to £2·60 on earnings plus threshold agreements at 6 per cent. It is fair to say that neither the TUC nor the CBI showed any great interest in threshold agreements. But we are perfectly prepared to discuss them with both sides in stage 3. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not realise that it is not a party interest but a national interest that the great majority of workers today have failed to follow the Opposition's advice to come out on a political strike.

Mr. Marten: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) suggested that we might subsidise food. Is that possible without rationing?

The Prime Minister: In certain strictly controlled ways, such as those that we used during the past year in the case of sugar and potatoes, it has been possible to help in this respect. If it is suggested that it is possible to do it in the case of items like meat or cereals where there are world shortages at the


moment, obviously the consequences of rationing would be likely to ensue.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ellis: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment on regional development proposals.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ellis: In view of the paramount need to eliminate regional economic disparities across Europe and in view of the failure of all Governments so far to reverse the centripetal pull to the central golden triangle, will the Prime Minister ask the three Secretaries of State to assess the effect of the Channel Tunnel upon the Welsh and Scottish economies, not in absolute terms but relative to its effect on the South-East, and to couple that with an assessment of proposals to improve direct sea and air communications between the peripheral regions of Europe?

The Prime Minister: Both the hon. Gentleman's points are of great importance for regional policies. Obviously a study has been made of the impact of the Channel Tunnel on the South East, and from time to time the airlines themselves as well as Government Departments have made studies of ways to improve air communications from the different parts of the country. Those who come from the North East will know that specific action has been taken there as well as in the South West and the North West. But certainly I shall see whether it is possible to provide information to help the hon. Gentleman on his two specific points.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does the Prime Minister recognise that in Scotland the immense investment represented by Maplin, the Channel Tunnel and various other developments in the South East are considered to be the complete opposite of regional development policies in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I cannot agree about that. The fact that we are developing rapidly for example in Scotland and the North East does not mean that we should not also develop communications in the South East to enable them to be more economic if the expenditure is

shown to do so. It is not contradictory. In any case, on many occasions when I have had discussions with the Scottish Council and other bodies they have emphasised the need for better direct communications not only with the South East but direct to Scandinavia and Northern Germany. That is the right approach to produce better communications for Scotland.

ANIMALS (EXPORT)

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with regard to the export of live animals.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Sir Gilbert Longden: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is widespread anxiety about the export of live animals, especially for slaughter, and that there is confusion about which Department of the Government is responsible for policy. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in the Community regulations which would prevent an all-carcase trade, and that Her Majesty's Government will continue to press our European partners to operate strictly the Balfour Assurances?

The Prime Minister: We have already pressed our partners in the Community, as well as other countries, to operate the Balfour Assurances to the full. We shall continue to do so. Where it has been found that these assurances are not being carried out, Government Departments have taken action to prevent the export of live animals to the country concerned. We have also requested a discussion on the whole question of welfare arrangements and improved welfare for animals throughout the Community. Overall this is probably the most important step that we can take to get the Community to agree a policy about the export of live animals.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is utter repugnance in the country about this trade, regardless of political affiliation and regardless of our membership of the European Community, and that the consciences of many


people have been aroused by Press revelations about the suffering of these animals, typified by the recent feature article in the News of the World? Will the Prime Minister ensure that everything possible is done to end a trade which many people find abhorrent?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of abhorrence felt about such cases as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman and the article in the News of the World on 18th March about a specific country. As I have said, Government Departments take action where they find that these assurances are not being carried out. It would not be justifiable to take action as regards a country where all the undertakings are being observed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.

Sir R. Russell: Since evidence has been sent to the Ministry about violations of the Balfour Assurances in relation to cattle, when will a suspension of licences for cattle be promulgated in view of the fact that this has already been done with sheep?

The Prime Minister: Observations have been sent to the Department about certain cases involving cattle. These cases are being investigated. When the conclusions are known, a decision will be taken as to whether action to suspend exports to the country concerned is necessary.

Mr. Callaghan: If we cannot persuade the Community on this matter, since it is perfectly simple to slaughter these animals here why not do so and abandon altogether this miserable trade?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it is justifiable, when a country wishes to import live cattle and is observing the undertakings, for us to affect our exports in this way.

Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter is very complicated at the moment? For instance, there are now allegations about ponies and horses being exported for slaughter again because the price which was arranged is now apparently too low. This is where we all came in. Could not my right hon. Friend institute an inquiry into what is going on?

The Prime Minister: What is important is that inquiries should be made into

any instances which are brought to our notice. I can assure the House that, wherever that happens, the inquiries are made and action follows.

Mr. William Price: Despite what the Prime Minister has said, is he not aware that millions of people are appalled at what is happening in animal welfare— everything from the export of live animals to blood sports—and at the fact that there does not appear to be sufficient Government action? Is it possible to consider having one Minister with responsibility in this field?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is necessary to have only one Minister responsible. The two Departments, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Industry, have their clear powers. Surely the proof of this is that action has been taken wherever it has been found that the Balfour Assurances have not been observed.

Mr. Callaghan: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain his earlier reply? How does it adversely affect our exports if we slaughter here and send the carcases abroad, rather than the live animals?

The Prime Minister: Simply because in many countries the markets want to buy the animals live. If that is so, they would go to other markets if they could, rather than buy carcases. But I do not understand the argument that, when we are satisfied that the assurances are carried out, as they are in this country when we import live animals from Ireland, we should make a change.

AGRICULTURE (EEC MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. I apologise to the Opposition, but it has been impossible to let them have a copy of the statement until now, since I have only just arrived in the country.
At its meeting which ended in Luxembourg this morning, the Council of Agricultural Ministers agreed on the prices under the CAP for 1973–74. This agreement, in my view, represents a reasonable compromise and safeguards British interests.
The Commission's original proposals envisaged an increase in prices of 2·76 per cent. virtually across the board, with substantial additional increases for some products. As a result of lengthy negotiations, we secured, first, that, under the provisions of Article 52 of the Treaty of Accession, we could reduce by 10 per cent. for each commodity, except beef, the increase in price which would otherwise have resulted from our undertakings to the Community.
On individual commodities, the Council agreed that the increases in the price of cereals and sugar should be limited to a modest 1 per cent., with a similar further increase when all member States have adhered to the joint float. This element of delay in adding the additional 1 per cent. is a useful gain.
The Council's decisions on milk are complicated and have to be looked at as a whole. The target price of milk is to be increased by 5½ per cent., but only by 4 per cent. in Germany and Benelux. The intervention prices of butter will be reduced by 5·4 per cent. and the price of skimmed milk powder raised to offset this and also, of course, to absorb the effect of the higher target price.
We were also able to secure agreement that member countries should be able to pay a subsidy on butter consumption amounting to about £47 a ton. This represents over 2p per pound and half the cost will be met from Community funds. The cut in the common butter price, together with the butter subsidy, are positive steps in dealing with the butter surplus problem.
As a result of these measures and of the 10 per cent. abatement under Article 52 which I have already mentioned, the average price of butter in the shops in this country should show no increase this year over present levels.
For beef, there is to be an increase of 10·5 per cent. in the guide price. There will be no 10 per cent. reduction under Article 52 in the price alignment in the United Kingdom. This is not necessary for beef, because the increased guide price is still well below present market prices.
These increases will not raise retail prices. On the other hand, producers

will have the assurance that their returns will not fall to unduly low levels, and this should help to maintain the expansion of home production. At the same time, consumers will still be able to benefit from any moderate falls in the world price of beef. They will also benefit from the continued suspension of all import charges which was agreed to operate until 15th September. This is a very important move, which will help to encourage imports and to keep down prices.
In addition, the Community has agreed to introduce grants to encourage milk producers to switch to beef production. This is a valuable move, designed to reduce excess butter production.
For pigmeat, an increase of 4 per cent. was agreed, with provision for a further 1 per cent. when all member States are in the joint float. This should not affect consumer prices.
There will be a general increase in the basic and buying-in prices of fruit and vegetables covered by the CAP of 7·5 per cent., except for pears, for which it will be 5 per cent., and cauliflowers, for which it will be 9 per cent. As these prices are well below market price levels, the increases are unlikely to have a significant effect on the level of market prices.
The Council also agreed on a resolution on farming in poorer areas. The Council will adopt, by 1st October, a directive which will provide for a special aid system, including compensatory payments, designed to encourage farming and to improve farmers' incomes in the poorer areas of the Community. Such a directive should prove an important step in the development of the CAP.
Finally, the Council agreed that there should be a thorough-going review of the general system of the CAP in the autumn. This may well prove, in the long run, to be one of the Council's most important decisions.

Mr. Shore: First, we appreciate the speed with which the Minister has come to the House to report on his lengthy negotiations in Brussels. However, although we appreciate that, it might have been somewhat better for the House as


a whole, on a statement of such importance and complexity if he had given himself and the House an extra 24 hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Among the reasons for making that suggestion is the observed fact that sleeplessness gives a certain euphoria to public statements and the reflection that the Minister's self-congratulatory statement on the one o'clock news may look very different when we have digested it tomorrow.
May I invite the Minister to make it clear that the increase in the cost of living arising from these negotiations of some ¼ per cent., as he puts it, in this coming year, is an increase on top of the increases which we have already known since the beginning of the freeze—an increase in food prices of about 8 per cent. since last November—and is quite apart from the increases in food prices which will take place this year under the terms of the Treaty of Accession and the application to Britain of the first phase of adaptation in the first year of our membership? These are entirely different and additional increases on top of the already unacceptable high levels that we have experienced and will experience still more in the year ahead.
Will the Minister confirm that the proposals that he has brought back compare with the proposals originally put forward by the Commission in certain respects? First, we are to have increases of 1 per cent. now and a 1 per cent. later—a 2 per cent. general increase—in food prices compared with the Commission's proposal put forward only a month or so ago for a 2·76 per cent. increase.
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that there will be a reduction in the intervention price of butter of 5 per cent. compared with the Commission's proposal of11 per cent.? Will he agree that the increase in the price of beef will be exactly the same as that proposed by the Commission? Will he tell the House why the proposals put forward by the Commission, which only a month ago seemed to him to be so unacceptable, now give him such satisfaction?
On hill farming, will the Minister make it clear whether the criteria for the areas which are to receive additional aid, and the kind and quality of that aid, are different from those which at present apply under hill farming subsidies paid by the

British Government? Will he assure us that the new levels of aid are not lower than existing levels? Will he say whether any agreement was reached about the unit of account and the measurement of our payment to the common agricultural policy? Shall we continue to have our obligations to Europe measured in pre-devaluation pound of 2·40 dollars or is it now to be paid at the devalued rate of 2·164 dollars, the result of which would be a corresponding and heavy increase in the obligations of this country?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his concern for my health, but I assure him that I am only too happy to come to the House to make statements as quickly as I can. On his first question about the increase of less than 0·25 per cent. in the food cost index, this is a rough estimate. I think that the increase is substantially less. This is separate from the increase which will accrue each year, which has always been referred to in this House and which has been estimated regularly at about 2 per cent., but which, as a result of the negotiations and other factors, I believe will be only 1½ per cent, this year. The factor that we have been able to eliminate—the increase in the butter price —is an important part of this.
On his second question, I found it difficult to follow his point about 1 per cent. now and 1 per cent. later on food prices. He must have completely misunderstood the point. There is no question of 1 per cent. now and 1 per cent. later. These increases apply to specific items of cereals and sugar and these will not produce increases in food prices directly to the housewife. They are limited increases which at some time and at some stage will have some impact but which at the moment have no impact because the market price is substantially higher.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's point about the Commission's original proposals, I remind him that, while the Commission made certain proposals, other countries wanted far more. We have been able to contain and to prevent these additional increases taking place and have gained something back on the Commission's proposals as well.
On hill farming, all along we have been seeking a Community commitment


which will take the place of some part at least of our hill farming commitment so that FEOGA funds will be made available for help in these areas, thus relieving the British Exchequer. We shall see that nothing is done to harm the position of our hill farmers, and anything introduced by this proposal will be introduced before anything else is removed from the assistance to our hill farming areas.

Sir Robin Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country will be grateful for the promptness with which he has come to report to the House on his difficult negotiations? He will be generally congratulated on the valiant way in which he has stood up for the interests of the British housewife. Will he quantify the amount of extra money that the French farmer will get as a result of his announcement on what will be paid on milk and will he say how far that will affect the British contribution in later years?

Mr. Godber: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind words. The French farmer will be getting the benefit of a 5·5 per cent. increase as regards butter and milk. But, for the reasons I have given, and as a result of the various proposals we have agreed, there will be a reduction in the price of butter and therefore less attraction to produce butter. There will, however, be an incentive to consume more. That is important, but the proposals we have agreed to encourage a transfer from milk production to beef production will have a strong effect on France and will avoid some of the surpluses which have worried us all.

Mr. Hooson: Will the Minister clarify two points? First, will the funds used to encourage the switch from milk to beef production come from Community sources or national sources, what form will they take and when will they come into operation? On the directive on help for poorer areas, does it mean that support for the poorer areas in this country, being the hill and marginal areas, will come from Community funds as opposed to national funds and that there will be no difference in the present status of the hill farmers?

Mr. Godber: On the first point, the arrangements for this will be introduced

as soon as they can conveniently be made. The matter has to be ironed out and specific arrangements detailed and spelt out. I cannot give the hon. and learned Member a precise date. The funds will come partially from FEOGA and partially from national sources. On the changeover in the hill farming areas, again it will be partially FEOGA and partially national funds, and I give the hon. and learned Gentleman a firm undertaking that there will be no diminution in or derogation from the position of hill farmers in this country.

Mr. Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend's statement will mean that the housewife and all consumers will be safeguarded in the short term as a result of what he said and in the long term by encouraging the production of those commodities which are in short supply. No doubt during the course of the review of the CAP every attention will be paid to encouraging the production of commodities which are in short supply. Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is intended that the review of the CAP should be completed in time for the farm review which will be undertaken this time next year?

Mr. Godber: Yes, that is certainly the intention. I attach tremendous importance to this and I want to get it developed in a period when we are not under such stress as we have had in recent weeks during actual negotiations. I have discussed the matter with M. Lardinois, the Commissioner, and he plans to make a start on his discussions within the Commission in June and to bring the matter to the Council in October, so that we should have ample time to deal with the matter before next year. As for the housewife, I agree that the stimulus for increased beef production is one of the surest ways of getting down meat prices in this country

Mr. English: Does the Secretary of State's statement mean that the Government are now in favour of a butter subsidy? Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the Lord President's misinterpretation to the Lobby of the meaning of the butter subsidy and the people to whom it could be applied in view of what has happened, with the Commission's approval, in the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Godber: Perhaps I could correct the hon. Gentleman's misinterpretation. It might be better if I were to do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he is under a misapprehension—and I will spell it out. What I imagine the hon. Gentleman is referring to is the subsidy for social reasons. What I am dealing with is a general subsidy across the board for all consumers. That is the point. When there is a Community arrangement which will cover all the consumers that is an entirely different point. The social provision is something which the Government felt it right to delay until we had reached a determination on the more general position. We shall be making known our position on that, I hope, before the end of this week.

Sir D. Renton: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend, while persistently standing up for British interests, has saved the common agricultural policy from a crisis of its own? Does not his recent effort in diplomacy at Brussels augur well for our co-operation with Europe?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am not sure that I deserve all that credit. One of my objectives throughout these discussions has been to see that we get a sensible outcome now and a sensible plan for the future. I am absolutely certain that the common agricultural policy can be made into an effective system to serve us and the rest of Europe. It is my intention to try to help to do just that.

Mr. Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the extent to which Britain will benefit from the directive on hill farming will depend more than anything else on the number of farms in the United Kingdom covered by the directive? Is he satisfied, as a result of these meetings, that all areas at present in receipt of the hill cow subsidy and also a fair proportion of our marginal areas will qualify for assistance under the directive?

Mr. Godber: This is an important point and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised it. It has been a matter of great concern to me. Some of the Ministers wished to limit this to restricted areas, which would not have been of help

to us. We were finally able to agree words which would embrace these areas. Only this morning—at a very early hour I may say—I was able to read into the record—and obtain approval of it by the other Ministers—the kind of interpretation that I believed would suit us and which was acknowledged as being one of the bases for the directive.

Mr. Wolrige-Gorden: Will the grant designed to persuade milk producers to switch to beef production be available to existing beef producers to enable them to increase their production? Has any forecast been made about whether a meat mountain is likely?

Mr. Godber: The grant will be related specifically to those switching from milk to beef. We have had a large number of different proposals before us in recent months, some of which have aimed at the purpose to which my hon. Friend referred. We have not been able to reach agreement on them yet. I look on this issue as the most important one. Now that we have agreement, it may be possible to introduce others.

Mr. Deakins: The Minister has often told the House recently that any general consumer subsidy must involve rationing. When are we to have butter rationing as a result of this agreement in Brussels? Can he say how much the cost of joining the Common Market has been increased as a result of these across-the-board increases on virtually all common price commodities?

Mr. Godber:: The point about subsidies involving rationing has to do with subsidies when there is a shortage of supply. There is no shortage of butter, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Thus there is no question of rationing when a commodity is in ample supply. I have explained the precise effect of these matters and have pointed out that the total impact will be less than a quarter of 1 per cent, on the cost of food, which is very much less taken over the whole retail cost of living index.

Mr. Farr: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the exciting news he has brought back today, especially that in relation to the possible review of the common agricultural policy in the coming months? Is he aware that this is something to which we attach great


importance? What decision did he reach about the Community production of sugar in the next year bearing in mind that the Community as a whole is an over-producer of sugar and that we shall shortly have to make room for Commonwealth sugar entering the country?

Mr. Godber: Sugar was one of those commodities I mentioned which has a 1 per cent. increase in price now and a further 1 per cent. at the time when we join the float. This is substantially less than the increase in the cost of production over the year. It is the maximum disincentive that could have been involved. I agree about the need to safeguard the position of our Commonwealth friends. My hon. Friend will recall that I recently held a conference at Lancaster House for our Commonwealth sugar-producing friends to discuss the implications of the position.

Mr. Peart: In view of the Minister's recent experiences, may I ask him whether he would agree that Monsieur Ertl's statement describing the common agricultural policy as a mad statement is correct?

Mr. Godber: Herr Ertl was speaking under some stress during a period when we had all been up for many hours. We have all had some difficulty in recent days. If any agricultural Minister has said some strong things during the last few days, I do not think he can be blamed. What I say about the common agricultural policy is that it should be improved. In the small hours of this morning I said some fairly strong things about the measures which have been adopted. I have said that I want to see some improvement in the system so that we can do this in a more reasonable way.

Mr. Biffen: Does not the agreement about milk, which permits a different price for France as opposed to Germany and the Benelux countries, establish a valuable principle of price differentiation along national bases? Will it be my right hon. Friend's objective to pursue that valuable precedent in future negotiations designed to replace the present ramshackle structure of the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Godber: The answer is, "No, Sir." I do not look at it in this way. This was a special arrangement as a result of great pressure from different countries and it is

working against the long-term interests of the common agricultural policy. I have said so. I criticised it on this score during our discussions because I believe that we have to try to get back to some common structure as soon as we can.

Mr. Baxter: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how a 5½ per cent. increase to milk producers will reduce the amount of milk available for the manufacture of butter? How shall we get rid of the resulting surplus? What is his estimate of the amount which the British taxpayer will have to pay next year to subsidise the sale of the surplus butter? Will he give us an explanation about how this agreement will affect New Zealand butter producers?

Mr. Godber: The 5·5 per cent. increase was the least that could be secured, although some Ministers were pressing for 8·5 per cent. I said 5·5 per cent. and 4 per cent. in certain other areas. That is only one aspect. The other element in this is that the price of butter to the consumer is being reduced. It is being compensated for by increasing the price of skimmed milk powder. There is also the direct subsidy. Both of these will help to increase consumption considerably during the period. Another factor is the stimulus to switch from milk to beef production. We have to look at these matters as a whole. I am as concerned as the hon. Member to prevent surpluses. This is one of the reasons why it has taken us so long to reach an agreement, because I was determined to obtain factors of this kind which would help to offset the dangers. I believe that we have succeeded in that respect.

Mr. McBride: Does not this statement, shorn of all its verbiage, mean simply that prices to the housewife in this country will increase? Does not the Minister agree that no British housewife will believe him when he says otherwise?
Lastly, could I put it to him that with this and other indications of the expensive nature of our joining the Common Market in relation to a common agricultural policy, it is quite clearly beyond peradventure that the cost of living will increase by much more than the 2½ per cent. estimated by the Government in the declaration contained in the White Paper.

Mr. Godber: The answer to the first question is precisely the opposite. This


statement means that as a result of this agreement the increases that would have taken place and would have affected the British housewife this year will not now take place. I have said that such increases as there will be are absolutely minimal during this present year. That is a very important achievement to have made.
The hon. Member spoke about a 2½ per cent. increase—I told him that my revised estimate for this year is about 1½ per cent.—as being due to CAP. I hope he knows—I have told the House many times—that the big increases we have had during the last six or nine months have been due solely to world conditions and not to CAP.

Mr. Body: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone, or nearly everyone, will applaud that last sentence. However, the term review could be rather meaningless. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that on this occasion it does include a change in the fundamental principles of CAP?

Mr. Godber: I do not think it means a change in the fundamental principles. That is not likely to happen. But by changing emphasis in many ways we can get it into a healthy condition, and it is my objective to achieve just that.

Mr. Mark Hughes: May I ask the Secretary of State whether he will undertake to publish, at the earliest opportunity, a White Paper on assistance to special areas, and whether this would include such matters as assistance to tourism, climatic problems and so forth, so that such a White Paper could be debated?

Mr. Godber: I am happy to consider the point about a White Paper, but we shall not get the final directive about assistance to these areas until 1st October this year. The resolution to which I referred committed the Commission to produce the directive before 1st October. But today I especially begged that, although the commitment is for 1st October only, the date should be brought forward. As soon as it is available, we shall see what can be done in regard to publicising it. The main point is that it will be taking the place of existing national arrangements, and so it will not be extended. I agree it is very important

that people should know, and I will gladly consider whether it will be right when the time comes to publish a White Paper.

Mr. Awdry: May I say that not a single hon. Member opposite has had the grace to express any gratitude or to pay any tribute to the Secretary of State. Is the Minister aware that some of us on this side of the House resent that very much indeed?

Mr. Godber: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, but sometimes gratitude from the other side of the House can be embarrassing.

Mr. David Clark: We do not express gratitude because we do not feel that there is anything to be grateful about.
Can the Minister tell us what the Intervention Board price of butter in the United Kingdom will be as from today, and what the price is in Europe? Could he confirm that under the procedures we have at the moment our butter prices will have to be increased to approximately £800 a ton from approximately £400 a ton? Can he also tell us what effect the new arrangement will have on the 150,000 tons of butter which we have in store in Britain at the moment?

Mr. Godber: The price will go up, not from today—because we had to make arrangements and the decision was reached only today—but from 13th May. That is the date when the rise will take place. The application of the full percentage reduction and the special 10 per cent. abatement means that the price will go up by £55 instead of £84, but most of this will be offset by the butter subsidy of £47 and the rest will be offset by the fact that the market price is already above the intervention price. The answer is that there will be practically no increase at all.
The EEC level is around £800. It will be lowered by the arrangement we have made this time, by the reduction we have brought about, but I could not give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Carr, Guardianship Bill.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order. We have been discussing this


matter for 35 minutes, of which 18 minutes have been spent by the Minister answering questions from backbenchers. There are still some backbenchers left who have important matters to raise and whose constituents expect them to raise them. I am in that position and I expect my constituents to telephone me on one matter. I am sure that there are other hon. Members who are in the same position.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows quite well that that is not a point of order. This is purely a matter of discretion for the Chair. I allowed 35 minutes, during which time we heard I think three Scottish Members. Mr. Carr.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order. I want to persist—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not pursue the same point if I rule that it is not a point of order. If the hon. Member has another point of order—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I will change it to another point of order. Would it be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to ask the Select Committee to bear this point in mind—

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Molloy: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would consider examining this situation. There seems to be a very unhappy state of affairs on this side of the House. There are those of us who do not enjoy the privilege of being a Privy Councillor, who have a remarkable facility for catching your eye. It seems there is a new situation developing in which some hon. Members for part of Question Time sit on the back benches and catch your eye, and then revert to the Front Bench and catch your eye again. Many of us who sit right through Question Time fail to catch your eye.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really do not think that the hon. Gentleman lacks opportunities.

GUARDIANSHIP BILL [Lords]

Ordered,

That the Guardianship Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.— [Mr. Carlisle.]

EQUAL PAY (AMENDMENT) BILL

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 9 of the Equal Pay Act 1970.
The amendment which I propose is short, simple, severely limited in its scope, and narrow in its purpose, but its effect would be in accord with the aims of the TUC, a host of women's organisations and millions of the working women whom they represent.
Section 9 of the Equal Pay Act gives the Secretary of State for Employment the power to introduce an order requiring partial implementation of the Act by the end of this year. Although hard pressed to do so—certainly from this side of the House often and by organisations outside Parliament—the Secretary of State so far has stubbornly and persistently refused to exercise that power. I believe that discretion in this matter should now be taken away from the Secretary of State and that he should be required to lay the order so that Parliament, not the Government, should exercise judgment about the need and wisdom of such a course.
That is the simple purpose of the Bill that I ask the House to consider.
The reasons why I think this should be done are twofold. First, the House will be well aware that the Equal Pay Act is intended to abolish discrimination between men and women, as regards terms and conditions of employment, not later than the end of 1975. It was not the intention of Parliament, and certainly not the intention of those who brought that measure before the House, that action to achieve that objective should be deferred until that date. The five-year period of implementation was carefully and deliberately chosen to allow employers progressively to adjust to the extra cost burden. Section 9 was, therefore, put into the Act so that the Secretary of State could ensure that the principle was put into practice.
The Secretary of State may, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9, introduce an interim order requiring the


objectives of the Act to be at least 90 per cent. fulfilled by the end of this year if he is not satisfied that orderly progress is being achieved. I emphasise those words because they are the only criterion laid down in the Act. The Government say that orderly progress is being made— the Under-Secretary nods in agreement— and to support that contention they rely on the report published last year by the Office of Manpower Economics. But that report revealed that women's average hourly earnings, excluding overtime pay, were less than 64 per cent. of those of men.
For women manual workers it was just over 61 per cent.—again, hourly earnings exclusive of overtime pay. For non-manual workers the comparison is even worse, with women averaging as low as 53 per cent, of men's earnings. There was a differential of more than 20 per cent. between the minimum rates for male and female manual workers in nearly a quarter of the companies covered by the report. Of course, these figures relate to the latter part of 1971, but they are, presumably, the latest available comparisons. I have no evidence of any subsequent significant improvement.
I believe that about two weeks ago there was sent to every Member a memorandum from the National Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations, a serious and highly respected body. It said that
after almost three years since the Equal Pay Act was put on the Statute Book the majority of women are still neither receiving equal pay, nor is there orderly progress towards equal pay for them.
The most optimistic forecasts suggest that, on performance to date, even if the equal pay concessions in the Government's pay code are exploited to the full, women's average hourly earnings by the end of this year are unlikely to reach 75 per cent. of those of men—a long way short of the target of the Equal Pay Act.
There is one other equally serious aspect of the equal pay issue that needs to be tackled, and would be dealt with by this Bill. There are widespread and growing allegations—well founded I believe—that some employers are deliberately rigging their pay structures to frustrate the aims of the Act. There is abundant evidence that this evasion is being

actively encouraged by employers' associations. The GME Report—on which rests the Government's case for inaction— observed that
Employers' associations exert a crucial influence on the pace at which equal pay is introduced.
That is remarkably restrained language in view of some of the guidance that has been issued. The Engineering Employer's Federation, for example, advises its members that
Where job evaluation is used it may be possible to minimise the effect of equal pay by changing the work content of jobs so that re-evaluation is justified. Alternatively the withdrawal of men or women from certain jobs may limit the scope for parity claims.
A further gem of guidance from the same source is that member firms
must keep the domestic male unskilled rate as low as possible to avoid unnecessarily increasing the costs of equal pay.
In other words, one cheats the low-paid women by cheating the low-paid men.
I know of one case where a group of severely handicapped men—who are consequently in an extremely weak bargaining position—are being deliberately pushed into a lower position in their factory pay structure because they are being used as the basis of comparison for equal pay. This is fiddling of a particularly despicable kind. We should condemn it—not least should the Government, who have insisted so firmly of late that Parliament's laws must be observed.
The Act, however, can provide' a remedy. Once it becomes operative, not only will aggrieved persons have a right to submit their cases to the industrial tribunals, but there will be a right to have discriminatory pay structures and collective agreements examined and adjudicated upon by the Industrial Arbitration Board.
As things stand at present, these remedies cannot be obtained until 1975, but the consequential effect of the Bill which I am submitting to the House would redress that situation. The order that the Government would be required to put before Parliament would, automatically, through its activitation of Section 9, give access to the board and the tribunals. Unless and until that is done the abuses and the fiddling will continue, and the will of Parliament will be


contemptuously ignored by too many employers for another two years.
If, in conclusion, I refer yet again to the OME Report it is only because the Government have chosen to rest their case upon it. The report says that ignorance of the Act is widespread; in many cases managements are either unaware of its existence or know nothing of its contents. It says that the Act is not being effectively implemented, and concludes by saying
the later it is left to plan the introduction of equal pay the more intractable the problems are likely to be".
The Bill which I seek to put before the House is the only effective response to the spirit of those words; it will provide a speedy means of cracking down on employers intent on cheating women of the gains which Parliament offered them; and it will offer millions of working women a measure of justice which has for too long been deferred.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harold Walker, Mrs. Doris Fisher, Mr. Denis Howell, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, Dame Joan Vickers, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Kenneth Lomas, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mrs. Shirley Williams, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Reg Prentice and Mrs. Barbara Castle.

EQUAL PAY (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend Section 9 of the Equal Pay Act 1970; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 20th July and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

Orders of the Day — WATER BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

REQUISITIONING OF SEWERS FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES

'(1) It shall be the duty of a water authority to provide any sewer necessary for domestic purposes if the conditions mentioned in either paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) below are satisfied.

(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above are—


(a) that—

 (i) the water authority are required to provide the sewer by owners or occupiers of premises in their area who need the sewer for the drainage of those premises: and
 (ii) the aggregate amount of the charges which would be payable annually by the persons making the requisition in respect of the drainage of the premises in question into the sewer will not be less than one-eighth of the expense of providing the sewer; 

 (b) that—

 (i) a sewer is needed for the drainage of premises in the water authority area but the aggregate amount of the charges which would be payable annually by the owners or occupiers of the premises for the drainage of which the sewer is needed will be less than one-eighth of the expense of providing it; and
 (ii) the local authority in whose area the premises are situated undertake subject to subsection (3) below, to make good to the water authority in each year the difference between that sum and the amount received by the water authority in respect of the drainage of the premises in question into the sewer; 

 (c) that an owner of land who proposes to erect on it buildings for the drainage of which a sewer will be needed—

 (i) requires a water authority to provide a sewer, and
 (ii) undertakes, subject to subsection (3) below, to pay in respect of each year a sum amounting to one-eighth of expense of providing the sewer (less any amount received by the authority in respect of premises which drain into the sewer) until the aggregate amount of the charges payable annually in respect of the drainage of the buildings into the sewer, and in respect of any other premises draining into it, equals or exceeds that sum.

(3) Any obligation to pay an annual sum under subsection (2) above shall in any event


cease on the expiration of a period of twelve years from the date on which the laying of the sewer is completed.

(4) If premises for which a sewer is needed are situated in the areas of more than one local authority, an undertaking under this section may be given in respect of the premises by more than one of those local authorities, but need not be given by all of them.

(5) A water authority may require a landowner (other than a local or public authority) to deposit with them, as security for the payment of an annual sum under subsection (2) above, such sum, not exceeding the total expense of laying the sewer, as the water authority may require.

(6) The water authority shall pay interest at a rate prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State or, if no rate is for the time being prescribed, at 4 per cent. per annum, on any sum in their hands by virtue of subsection (5) above, and—


(a) shall, on the request of the landowner appropriate out that sum any amount due under his undertaking; and
(b) when the undertaking is finally discharged, repay to him any sum remaining in their hands.

(7) A water authority may agree with a local authority or any other person who is obliged by virtue of this section to meet any portion of the expense of providing a sewer that the whole or any part of the account for which that person is liable shall be deemed to be satisfied by payment of a capital sum.

(8) If a water authority, after receipt of an undertaking under this section, or of a sum of money in lieu of such an undertaking, do not, before the expiration of the relevant period, lay the necessary sewer, they shall, unless they show that the failure was due to unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.

(9) In subsection (8) above "relevant period" means six months or such longer period as may be agreed by the water authority and the local authority or other person requiring them to lay the sewer.

(10) Any dispute arising under this section—


(a) as to the nature or extent of the work necessary for laying a sewer; or
(b) as to the relevant period for the laying of a sewer, 

shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration.

(11) If the parties to any such dispute are unable to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator the appointment shall be made by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

(12) A sewer shall be treated for the purposes of this section as necessary for domestic purposes if it is necessary for removing water used for cooking or washing, or the contents of a lavatory, from any premises.

(13) In this section "local authority" does include the council of a county or the Greater London Council.

(14) Nothing in section 14 above or any arrangements made under section 15 above shall be taken to impose on a water authority any such obligation to provide a sewer as may be imposed on them under this section without the requirements of this section being satisfied '.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.16 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the clause is to establish a procedure whereby a water authority may be required to provide sewers for domestic purposes in certain circumstances which are set out in the clause. The clause follows closely the existing provision in the Water Act 1945 for the requisitioning of domestic water supplies, to which the water authorities will also be subject.
I gave an undertaking in Committee to introduce such a clause and I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) who put down an amendment which would have achieved something of the same purpose. In the course of the debate on that amendment my hon. Friend urged me to ensure that water authorities would make provision in their investment programmes for the sewerage and sewage disposal facilities needed to implement local authority development plans.
My hon. Friend was seeking a rather general obligation. In this clause I ask the House to accept a more specific obligation on the new water authorities. The clause gives both local authorities and private persons a means to secure the provision of sewerage facilities, subject, of course, to their willingness to make guaranteed payments, as it is in the case of water requisitioning, and this, I think, will be far more effective than a general obligation on water authorities to make provision for such facilities in their programmes.
My hon. Friend has led me to a much more specific provision than the general obligation which he contemplated. As the law stands at present, local authorities are obliged to provide sewerage and sewage disposal facilities only in those parts of their districts in which there are already occupied premises, and this has


acted in the past as a constraint on development. The clause will overcome that. It is also consistent with the proposals in the Government's White Paper on housing recently published, where it is said that developers should contribute towards the cost of providing the infrastructure for housing development.
Perhaps I may briefly tell the House how the clause achieves the purposes which I have indicated in general terms. The clause sets out the requisitioning powers of each type of person—or body —by reference to the conditions which he has to meet in order to make valid use of those powers. Private persons will be able to requisition a sewer to serve existing property without any liability to pay more than their normal charges for sewerage if the amount of those charges would equal or exceed one-eighth of the estimated capital cost.
Local authorities will be able to requisition a more costly scheme to serve existing properties—namely, a scheme which will cost more than eight times the aggregate of the charges payable annually in respect of the sewerage of the properties served. In that case the local authority, in order to make that requisition, must undertake to make up the annual revenue to one-eighth of the actual cost for a period not exceeding 12 years.
Finally, a prospective developer, whether it is a local authority or a private person, will be able to requisition a sewer on condition that he makes up in each year for up to 12 years the amount by which one-eighth of the capital cost exceeds the annual charges paid in respect of the properties served. In short, the clause follows the comparable water supply provisions for requisitioning in assur-

New Clause 3

PRECEPTS FOR WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE FUNCTIONS

'(1) Sums required by a water authority to meet the cost of performing their water supply and sewerage functions shall be raised by precepts to the local authorities whose areas are comprised wholly or partly in the area of the water authority.


(2) Paragraphs 10 and 12 of Schedule 4 to this Act shall apply to the raising of precepts by a water authority for the purposes of this section and to the calculations of a penny rate product subject to any necessary modifications including—


(a) the substitution of "local authority area "for" local land drainage district "and" that area "for" that district "in each place where those words occur; 


(b) the substitution for paragraph 10(2) of the following sub-paragraphs:—


"(2) Not later than the month of February immediately preceding each financial year, each water authority shall make or cause to be made estimates of their probable income and expenditure on revenue account in respect of

ing the water authority of an annual income of not less than one-eighth of the capital cost of any work which is requisitioned from it.

I must warn the House that there are a number of points in the drafting of this new Clause which may need further consideration and a bit of tidying up. For example, I have spotted that a provision is needed corresponding to paragraph 42(3) of Schedule 7 to the Bill for the identification of the sewerage element in a combined charge. But rather than wait for this tidying up of drafting points I thought it proper to bring this before the House at this stage because it is an important clause as regards the whole structure of the new water authorities.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the consideration which he has clearly given to the point which I raised in Committee.
The question of the one-eighth of the expense of the annual provision of the facility both for a private occupier and owner and for a developer, whether it is a local authority or a private developer, cannot be determined because we have no idea as yet what the level of charges will be. It is not possible to see to what this commitment must amount. However, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on giving a terminal date to the period of time for which a developer has responsibility. This is a period of 12 years, and it puts some terminal expense on the cost involved in provision and collection. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

water supply and sewerage functions during that year making allowance for any estimated credit or debit balance to be brought forward from the previous year; and the amount by which expenditure is estimated to exceed the income shall be apportioned by the water authority among the local authorities any part of whose area is comprised in the area of the water authority on the basis of the appropriate penny rate product for the relevant area for the relevant year (calculated in accordance with Part III of this Schedule.";


(c) the omission of sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) of paragraph 10; 


(d) in paragraph 10(7) the substitution of "Secretary of State" for "Minister";


(e) in paragraph 10(12)—


(i) in the definition of "local authority" the substitution of "district" for "county";


(ii) the omission of the definition of local authority members;


(iii) in the definition of "relevant expenditure" the substitution of "water supply and sewerage functions "for" land drainage functions";


(f) in paragraph 12(1)—


(i) after "local authority", the insertion of "their area or";


(ii) the omission of the words "in any local land drainage district";


(g) in paragraph 12(2) the substitution of "Secretary of State" for "Ministers";


(h) the substitution for paragraph 12(4) of the following sub-paragraph:—


"(4) In this part of this Schedule 'relevant year' has the meaning assigned to it by sub-paragraph (12) of paragraph 10 above"'.—[Mr. Rowlands.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss with new Clause 3 the following amendments:

No. 66, in Clause 25, page 28, line 33, at end insert:
'Provided that this subsection shall not apply to water supply and sewerage functions'.

No. 68, in Clause 26, page 28, line 44, after 'rights', insert:
'but excluding services, facilities or rights performed, provided or made available in respect of water supply and sewerage functions'.

No. 72, in Clause 27, page 30, line 4, at end insert:
'other than those in connection with water Supply and sewerage functions'.

No. 79, in Clause 34, page 35, line 26, at end insert:
'"water supply and sewerage functions" means functions in relation to the supply of water for domestic purposes (as defined in Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945) and functions under section 14 above'.

No. 133, in Schedule 7, page 81, leave out lines 15 to 39 and insert:
'40.—(1) For the purpose of sections 36 and 37 of that Act the aggregate amount of such portions of the general rate for the time being payable in a year in respect of any building or other premises as is attributable to any precept issued by a water authority shall be deemed to be the aggregate amount of the water rates payable in respect of such

building or other premises at the rates for the time being charged by the undertakers.
(2) For the purpose of this paragraph the portion of the general rate payable in respect of any building or other premises which is attributable to a precept shall be calculated by applying the equivalent rate to the rateable value of that building or those premises'.

No. 134, in page 82, line 4, at end insert:
'46.—(1) The following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect for modifying references to a water rate and related expressions in Schedule 3 in its application to a water authority by virtue of any enactment.
(2) In section 29—

 (a) in subsection (1) for the words from "the aggregate amount" to "by the undertakers" there shall be substituted the words "the aggregate amount of each portion of the general rate for the time being payable in a year by those owners and occupiers in respect of those premises as is attributable to any precept issued by the undertakers under the special Act (which aggregate amount is hereafter in this section referred to as 'the aggregate amount')"; 
(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection: —

(1A) If in the case of the owners and occupiers of premises in any area the aggregate amount is not sufficient to enable a valid requisition to be made under the last foregoing subsection, and the local authority of the district, or the local authorities of the districts, in which the area is situated undertake that, until the aggregate amount reaches a sum which would have enabled such a requisition to be made, or until the expiration of a period of twelve years, whichever first


occurs, they will make good to the undertakers in each year the difference between that sum and the sum of the aggregate amount for that year and any other amount received in respect of water supplied, whether for domestic or non-domestic purposes, in that year, in respect of premises in that area, the undertakers shall lay any necessary mains and bring water to that area";
(c) in subsection (2) after the word "last" there shall be inserted the words "but one"; after the word "provisions" there shall be inserted the words "or after tender to them of an undertaking which satisfies the provisions of the last foregoing subsection"; and after the word "requisition" where it occurs for the second time there shall be inserted the words "or the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, as the case may be".

(3) In section 30—


(a) in subsection (1) the words "and payment or tender of the water rate" shall be omitted; 
 (b) the proviso to subsection (1) shall be lettered "(a)" and there shall be added thereto the following: "and (b) nothing in this subsection shall entitle the owner or occupier of any premises or parts of premises in respect of which a general rate is not payable to demand and receive from the undertakers a supply of water as aforesaid otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 47 of this Schedule as modified by the special Act"; 
 (c) in subsection (2) the words "during any period in respect of which the water rate therefor has been paid or tendered" shall be omitted.

(4) In section 40 of paragraph (a) the words from "at or before" to the end of the paragraph shall be omitted.

(5) In section 42 in paragraph (b) of subsection (8) for the words "water rate" there shall be substituted the words "general rate"

(6) In section 47 in subsection (1) the words "in lieu of charging a water rate" shall be omitted, and after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
(1A)Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the undertakers to furnish a supply as aforesaid to premises or parts of premises in respect of which a general rate is not payable or by the terms and conditions on which such supply is offered may appeal to the Secretary of State who may direct the undertakers to furnish such a supply upon such terms and conditions as he may determine and the undertakers shall give the supply accordingly.

(7) In section 48 in subsection (1) the words "and in respect of which they charge a water rate" and the word "additional" shall be omitted and in subsection (2) the word "additional" shall be omitted.

(8) In section 51 the words "and in respect of which they charge a water rate" shall be omitted'.

No. 148, in Schedule 8, page 88, line 58, at end insert' Section 28(5)'.

Mr. Rowlands: The purpose of this new clause is to allow water authorities under the Bill to precept on the rates of local authorities to finance both sewerage and sewage disposal and water supplies. These are two separate issues although in a sense they are related. In the case of sewerage and sewage disposal, this has been until now a local authority responsibility and therefore the cost has been rate-borne.
I think we should require of the Government and the Ministers in the course of the debate today to make a statement on the financing of sewerage and sewage disposal, because the situation is still far from clear. Anyone who tries to discover exactly what will happen will find himself befogged and befuddled by this situation. How will the cost be borne? What form will the charges take? At present they are rate-borne and the advantage of this to many local authorities, such as that which I represent, and many neighbouring authorities within the area of the Taf Fechan Water Board, is that not only do we as ratepayers finance and support the sewerage and sewage disposal service but the rate resources grant available from central Government does a great deal to offset the cost of this.
If there is no form of precept on local authority rates and if the cost of sewerage and sewage disposal is to be borne by the consumers themselves, there will be a very significant increase in cost to a large number of residents in the poorer communities which up to now have had central Government support in the form of a rate resources grant.
As regards the authorities within the Taf Fechan Water Board area, the cost to Merthyr for the year 1972–73 of sewerage and sewage disposal will be £171,000, of which half is borne by the rate resources grant. If no precept is allowed and therefore no rate resources grant is allowed on the cost of sewerage and sewage disposal, the increase in charges to the community will be very considerable indeed.
The Taf Fechan Water Board is perhaps unusual in one respect in that it uses precepting on the rates to finance water supply as well as sewerage and sewage disposal. It is unique rather than unusual


in this. It means, however, that, if we are forced to abandon any form of precept and if the rate resources grant which helps us to keep down the charges for both water supply and sewage disposal in our areas ceases, then in April 1974 thousands of householders in the valleys of South Wales will get swingeing increases in the cost of water and of the sewerage service.
Therefore I think that the Minister must now tell us how he envisages the financing of sewerage and sewage disposal from next April, what form the charges will take and whether precepting will be allowed. But, particularly in the case of water supply in the Taf Fechan Water Board area, I should like him to say that we shall be allowed to continue our precepting, in agreement with all the local authorities in the area, because if we do not the extra burden which will fall on householders in these areas will be very heavy indeed.
The total cost of sewerage and sewage disposal and water supply in the Taf Fechan Water 3oard area in 1972–73 is over £2 million, of which the rate resources grant covers one half. In other words, 50 per cent. of the cost of these services is met indirectly through the rate resources grant by central Government. If precepting is not allowed and the grant is withdrawn, in April 1974 householders in the constituent authorities of the Taf Fechan Water Board will face swingeing increases.
I notice in the consultative document produced by the Department of the Environment that according to one of the statements there will be a very gradual transition from one system of finance to another and there will not be any wild increases in the cost of water supply and other services as a result of the reorganisation. But I have to tell the Minister and the Secretary of State that unless precepting is allowed to continue after April 1974, and the rate resources grant element continues to support the cost of water supply and sewerage disposal, this could lead to very big and immediate increases. At a stroke we would have a massive increase in the cost to local householders which could not be offset by any allowances or reduction in the rates.
4.30 p.m.
I ask the Minister, first, to make a statement on the future of the charges for sewage disposal and, secondly, to allow boards such as that to which I have referred to continue the practice of precepting on local authority rates where the local authority is in full agreement. Unless that is done, the cost to the householders in the area will be considerably increased.
I hope that it is not the aim of the Bill to transfer this heavy financial burden from central Government to the local community. That has been a feature of much of the Government's legislation. Unless the new clause is accepted there will be a dramatic transfer of the financial burden from central Government to local householders. I ask the Minister to consider the new clause and to make a statement on the financing of these services.

Mr. Arthur Probert: My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) has referred to the effect of the Bill on his constituents. With great respect to him, the effect on my constituents will be far greater.
I will illustrate this by reference to two local authorities within my constituency, the Aberdare urban district and the Mountain Ash urban district. For Aberdare, if precepting is not allowed and the rate resources grant disappears, it would mean a loss of £134,000, and for Mountain Ash a loss of £142,965, totalling approximately £300,000. This would have serious repercussions on the constituent local authorities of the Taf Fechan Water Board and on the consumers in the area. It would affect the Taf Fechan Water Board as a whole by more than £1 million. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to the effect of the proposals upon the water board and its constituent authorities.

Mr. Graham Page: I ask the House to resist the new clause and its associated amendments, which would completely change the proposals in the Bill for the financing of water supply and sewerage services after reorganisation. Indeed, I am sure that that is the intention of the new clause. It would change the basis of the financing from direct charges for


services provided to local taxation through the general rates. The amendments would not only retain in essence the present financial basis but do away with the present water rate, which is a direct charge to the consumer although it may be based on the net annual value of the premises, and this would result in the financing of domestic water supplies as well as sewerage services through the general rate.
One consequence of that is that industry and some other non-domestic consumers would bear the full cost of their metered supplies on the basis of the quantiy used, and, in addition, in payment of the general rates would have to share the cost of supplies for domestic purposes to householders and to make a contribution to offices and shops.
The Central Advisory Water Committee's Sub-Committee on Water Charges concluded in 1963 that water should be paid for as far as possible on a quantity basis, and that only in exceptional cases should the genera! rate be called upon to meet deficits and that one class of consumer should not subsidise others.
One method of financing sewerage services provided by multi-purpose water authorities, which was discussed by the Central Advisory Water Committee in its 1971 report, envisaged charges for disposing of dirty water based on the cost of that service to each category of user. We have adopted this method in the Bill. We have also accepted the recommendation of the Committee on Sewage Disposal, chaired by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), that industry should be charged the full cost of receiving and conveying trade effluent in the public sewers and treating it at sewage disposal works.
If we were to accept the provisions of the new clause and the amendments, industry would presumably be entitled to have its liquid waste treated and disposed of without any direct charge being made but it would bear a rateable share of all sewerage and sewage disposal costs. As most of industry's liquid waste is treated in the factory and discharged direct to a river, estuary or the sea, this would favour those discharging to the sewers against those discharging direct. If the latter switched their waste to the sewers, the

consequences would be that in some areas domestic ratepayers might find themselves subsidising industrial waste disposal. These are the difficulties that arise once we switch to the provisions advocated in the clause.
Perhaps that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands). Perhaps he intends instead that industry shall still bear the full cost either by treating waste in the factory or by paying the water authorities to treat it and that it should also bear a rateable share of other sewerage costs. But, as with the water supply, that result would be inequitable and contrary to the principles we have endeavoured to embody in the Bill.
Alternatively—I think this is possibly what is behind the clause—the hon. Gentleman may be looking to the taxpayer to pay. Under present arrangements payments by a local authority under precept to water undertakers are relevant expenditure for the purpose of distributing the resources element of the rate support grant, but they are not taken into account in determining the national aggregate of that grant. Consequently, boards which incurred deficits to be met by way of precept have been obtaining an extra share of the grant although those precept payments attract nothing to the total to be shared out.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned £171,000, half of which his authority was getting from the rate support grant. The figure I have here is 45·2 per cent.—near enough half. The authority was getting that amount from the resources element and not by an increase in the total of the rate support grant. All it was doing was taking it from other authorities in the same area.
To put the whole cost of water on the rates, as is proposed in the new clause, would give areas such as Merthyr Tydvil and Aberdare an even larger share of the fixed amount of the cake. That would not be fair to other local authorities and their ratepayers and it would certainly be unacceptable to the Government. Water supply expenditure now attracts grant as regards both the aggregate of Exchequer grant to local authorities and the distribution of resources element.
I gave an assurance in Committee that in taking a decision about the appropriate level of Exchequer grant—to local authorities—after reorganisation we would take full account not only of local Government expenditure but of the fact that ratepayers in future will be paying directly for some water services that are at present paid for by local authorities from rate or rate support grant. I did not mean that the distribution of the grant among local authorities will be precisely the same. The effects of local government reorganisation and the shifting of responsibilities from local authorities, and the changes in local government finance, are bound to make substantial changes in the charges anyhow.
I do not agree that there will be massive changes or a massive increase in payment by any indivivdual. The individual ratepayers will have to contribute less to their local authorities in general rates by the removal of the sewerage charge and, indeed, the precepts for water from the general rates. I cannot agree that those should be allowed to continue and that local authorities should be allowed in future, after the reorganisation of the water service, including the sewerage and sewage disposal services, to precept and so place on their ratepayers that further charge.

Mr. John M. Temple: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the part of his speech which refers to the grants of local authorities which have been taking place hitherto and which would be in respect of sewerage functions, can he say whether the Government have yet decided as to the scope and size of the grants which will be made to the regional water authorities to take the place of those grants which would have come in an indirect manner under the present system?

Mr. Page: The short answer to my hon. Friend is nil. On the basis that consumers of water and users of the sewerage system will pay for that use, they will thereby be relieved from the charge of that on the general rate fund. It is a matter of the ratepayer paying it out of another pocket, perhaps.

Mr. Temple: My right hon. Friend said that the grants will be nil. I do

not think that he meant to imply that there will be nil grants to regional water authorities to take the place of the money which would have come to those persons who would have received the functions indirectly under the present system. I know that it is a complicated point but the gravamen of the point should be clear to my right hon. Friend. I do not think that he meant the answer to be nil.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Page: I mean that eventually, over the period of years which is described in the Bill, the whole of the charge for sewerage and water supply will fall on the consumers. I give no undertaking that after the transition period there will be any further grants from the Exchequer for these services. That is the basis of charging under the Bill. It is no good my beating about the bush. It is the basis of the Bill that these services, as the Central Advisory Water Committee has said in more than one report, should be paid for by the consumer.
There will be a transitional arrangement for a period which at present in the Bill is set at two years, and that under an order or orders to be made under paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 5 the water authorities will be enabled to obtain a lump sum payment from the appropriate local authorities in respect of sewerage and sewage disposal services. The local authorities would raise these sums by levying a uniform poundage on rateable values in their area. That is merely a transition arrangement, and a temporary measure of this sort will give the authorities sufficient time to be able to set up direct charging arrangements.
The lump sum will not be a precept. It will not attract rate support grant. If direct charging has to start, or had to start on 1st April 1974 when the new authorities take over, the existing authorities would have an enormous task in identifying all properties connected to the public sewers. Their successors would have an equally difficult problem in arranging to collect from them. That transitional period does not mean an abandonment of the principles of the Bill that there shall be no precepting.
Charges rather than taxation is the principle of financing here. The new clause,


which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has put before the Committee, would reverse that and make the principle taxation rather than charges. That would lead to the uneconomic use of resources. The new clause would introduce greater inequality than at present between different local authorities and their ratepayers and between different classes of consumers. I ask the Committee to resist the new clause.

Mr. Rowlands: My fears have been totally confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman's honest reply. While I did not expect him to accept the basic change which I am trying to make by the amendments and the new clause, I hoped that there would be some amelioration of the situation which many consumers and householders will face as a result of the charges—that is the extra direct charges that will occur from April 1974.
If nothing else, the Secretary of State for Wales must make a statement on what will happen after April 1974 to the constituent authorities within, for example, the Taf Fechan Water Board, if the precept stops at a stroke in April 1974. Such authorities will be faced with considerable increases. The Minister's statement that such increases can be offset by increases in rates is nonsense. Local authorities, which are poorer by nature of the definititon of the rate support grant, have been insisting on central government support. When the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) asked what was to be the support from central government and he heard that it was to be nil, I think that he was surprised. That is despite the fact that the Bill has been discussed for some considerable time and that the hon. Gentleman is one of the most perceptive hon. Members on these issues. 1 am not sure what will be the position of hon. Members and members of the public who have not followed these discussions come April 1974?
The Government in their consultative document stated that it was neither expected nor intended that regional water authorities would make any substantial changes in the pattern of charges for the first year or two of administration. If therefore authorities, such as the Taf Fechan Water Authority, are not allowed

to continue with some interim precept, there will be a dramatic change in the pattern, which will lead to considerable increases in costs for householders and which will not be offset by any reduction in rates.
This is the difference between the philosophy of the Government and that of the Opposition. The Minister said that he believed in charges, not taxation. We believe in taxation not charges. In many areas the rate resources grant is not a fiddle to assist some ratepayers rather than others. The basis of the grant is that it assists areas of low rateable value and areas which are not as wealthy as others by giving central Government support for certain essential services. The community is entitled to such support. The Minister is saying that he is withdrawing completely that support from areas which have previously received support in providing sewerage and water supply services.
I reject the philosophy on which the Bill is based, namely that there should be charges, not taxation. I believe that taxation rather than charges should be the basis.

Mr. Graham Page: I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what would happen if we were considering the situation against the background of complete nationalisation—for example, gas and electricity undertakings. Surely the hon. Gentleman would not expect a precept on local authorities in those cases.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister raises the old argument which we had constantly in Committee. We regard water services and sewerage disposal matters as an important, intrinsic part of social service and of public health in the service of the community. We do not regard it as a commercial enterprise. That is the difference between the two sides.
I hope that this debate has shown the divide between the Opposition and the Government, and I hope that it will bring home to the public the practical consequences of the Bill. Whatever the Minister may say, I believe that people will face heavy and increased direct charges on households, irrespective of income or need, in the supply of water and sewage disposal, both of which are


basic community services. Let the House now show what it feels and then let us allow the country to decide which philosophy is right.

Mr. Denis Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) that the Minister's answer was a little disappointing. My hon. Friend made his points extremely forcibly, but since this matter will arise for discussion on later amendments which deal with major issues of principle, I hope that he will agree not to press the issue at this point.

Mr. Rowlands: Since we shall have an opportunity to discuss these matters later, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

LONDON SEWERAGE AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL

'(1) Nothing in section 14 or section 15 of this Act shall apply or have effect in relation to any functions in so far as they are exercisable at the date of the passing of this Act by the Council of a London borough the Common Council of the City of London, the Greater London Council, or in relation to any functions exercisable by virtue of this section by the council of a district in so far as that district is on 31st March 1974 within the area of the West Kent Main Sewerage Board, and subsections (2) and (3) of section 36 of and Schedule 7 and Schedule 8 to this Act shall have effect accordingly.

(2) It shall be the duty of the council of every London borough, the Common Council of the City of London, the Greater London Council and the council of any such district as aforesaid to furnish the water authority for their area with such information as that water authority may from time to time require with respect to the exercise or any proposed exercise by such council of the functions referred to in subsection (1) above, and that water authority may require the council to consult with them about any matter connected with the exercise or proposed exercise of those functions which is likely to affect the exercise by the water authority of any of their functions.

(3) If within a period of two months beginning with the date on which a requirement under subsection (2) above was sent by the water authority to such a council, the water authority and the council have not reached agreement as to any of the matters to which

the notice relates, the water authority shall notify the Secretary of State of that fact and the Secretary of State may give to the council directions as to any such matter.

(4) (a) Subsection (9) of section 35 of the London Government Act 1963 together with the references in subsections (4) and (5) of that section to the said subsection (9) are hereby repealed and on 1st April 1974 the West Kent Main Sewerage Board shall cease to exist and there shall vest—


(i) in the Greater London Council all main sewers and sewage disposal works of that Board; and
 (ii) in the council of the London borough or district in which they are situated all public sewers other than main sewers of that Board.

(b) the Secretary of State may by order make such transitional, incidental, supplementary or consequential provisions as he thinks necessary or expedient for giving effect to the purposes of this section'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It will be convenient to take with new Clause 4, the following new clauses:

New Clause 5—Arrangements for discharge of functions for supply of water in Greater London, etc.

New Clause 7—London Thames Committee.

We shall also take the following amendments:

No. 33, in Clause 14, page 18, line 9, leave out from ' district' to the first' the ' in line 12.

No. 34, in page 18, leave out line 13.

No. 36, in line 16, leave out 'or outer London borough '.

No. 39, in Clause 15, page 18, line 40, leave out ' or the Greater London Council'.

No. 151, in Schedule 8, page 90, column 3, leave out lines 18 to 22.

Mr. Spearing: I hope that, if the Government do not accept new Clause 4, it will be convenient to have a vote on new Clause 5 if it proves necessary to do so. Both new Clauses 4 and 5 hang together


in that they refer to the proposed reorganisation of water and sewerage services in the area of the Greater London Council. New Clause 7, which is also concerned with London, is an associated matter with which I shall deal separately a little later. I hope that the Minister in his reply will give his views on whether he finds new Clause 7 acceptable, for I am sure that we can agree on its desirability if not on its exact wording.
It was generally agreed in Committee that the Bill attempts to meet the needs of the technical control of water supply and that local democracy had an important part to play in governing our affairs. Our problem is to find a means whereby the two aims coincide. On that issue there is total agreement on both sides of the House. I believe that there is also total agreement on both sides that a new structure governing water supply and water management is necessary throughout the country.
There has been agreement that there has been leaping demand and therefore a need for proper river basin management. However, there has been disagreement about the form which the structure should take.
These provisions are relevant to the greater London area. Local government in Greater London, unlike the set-up in the rest of the country, was reorganised ten years ago and will not be subject to the great reorganisation which will take place in the rest of the country next year. New Clause 4 seeks to retain the present structure of responsibility in terms of borough and greater London Council sewerage in the greater London area. It seeks to do so in a way that is different from that which was considered in Committee where it was thought that the Greater London Council should be its own original water authority. New Clause 4 does not seek to do this. It recognises that it is necessary for the overall management of water and sewerage in the Thames area, for the Thames Water Authority to have some overall responsibility. It tries to meet the Government's objectives inside the Greater London area by retaining the present structure for sewerage.
The Greater London Council has powers under the London Government

Act 1963 in respect of main drainage. It looks after the major trunk sewers in London which were the responsibility of the LCC. It undertakes sewerage works, it is responsible for the sludge vessels which put out to sea, and it undertakes flood control and land drainage work inside the Greater London area. The London boroughs look after smaller sewers which discharge into the trunk mains.
Over the last ten years there has grown up a happy relationship between the boroughs and the GLC in respect of these services. Unlike other aspects of Govment, such as the planning of motorways and all the rest of it, this particular scheme works well. It works so well that, despite the fact that both sides on the GLC have recently been locked in electoral combat, they have joined in opposing the Government's concept in this respect because the Government propose to take away from the Greater London Council responsibility for main drainage and sewerage works and to hand it over to the large new Thames Water Authority—an authority which will stretch from Cirencester to London. In doing so they do not wholly take over the borough councils' responsibility for tributary sewers, but they say to them "You will have control functions for looking after the smaller sewers on our behalf."
The Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association believe that this is not the right way to go about the reorganisation of water services in the London area. In Committee the Greater London Council used Members on both sides of the Committee to table amendments to enable the Greater London Council to become its own water authority. Those amendments were lost by only one vote and they were advocated by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. A Government defeat was avoided only by an apparent concession to which I shall come later. I say "apparent" because many of us thought that this apparent concession would have come about anyway. Nevertheless, the Greater London Council's proposals were beaten.
5.0 p.m.
The scheme outlined in new Clause 4 will retain the status quo. It will leave the GLC in control of its main sewers and


sewage works and leave the boroughs in control of their tributary sewers.
There are many reasons why this should be so. I will not bore the House by going over old ground because this matter was debated at length, as reported at cols. 77 to 187 in Committee. Alas, the proceedings are not yet printed in a bound volume because of the Government's speed in trying to rush the Bill through the House. Any hon. Member who reads what happened in Committee will see that there is an overwhelming argument for the GLC to maintain control of its main sewers and sewage works.
The Central Advisory Water Committee, to which the Minister referred in the last debate, made some proposals about finance. It also made proposals about a possible structure which has been followed by new Clause 4. Scheme B, advocated by the Central Advisory Water Committee on page 65 of its memorandum, is virtually what is proposed by the London Boroughs Association. The London boroughs value co-operation with the GLC. They value the fact that they can go to County Hall and see officials who deal with the local sewers. If, under the Government's proposals, they have to deal with a larger, more remote, water authority, the efficiency and adequacy of the service can be put in jeopardy.
The Minister may say, "Why is it that at this late stage there is now open warfare between the London Borough Association"—this is nothing to do with party interests—"and the Government on this issue? Surely there have been representations, debates and arguments with the Government." Indeed, there have been, because the London Boroughs Association, together with the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association, sent a memorandum to the Minister proposing what has been called the two-tier structure which is incorporated in the new clauses and the amendments.
The Minister would not listen to the opinion of local government interests. Some of his answers to the memorandum do not stand the test of scrutiny. For instance, the Secretary of State wrote to the local government associations, in particular to the GLC and the clerk to the

Rural District Councils Association, who is acting as a co-ordinator, saying that the Government's
objectives, in my considered judgment, can only be met by a system which is able to tackle the management of clean and dirty water without delays, lack of co-ordination, and conflicts of interest which are, as the CAWC said, inherent in the present fragmented system.
As I have shown, that is not true of London. Indeed, London is a special case—first, because there has already been local government reorganisation, secondly, because the system works well, and, thirdly, because the Government have already recognised that, whilst they are proposing that the GLC will lose its sewers, they are leaving it with the responsibility for land drainage and the natural water courses in the outer London areas. I am pleased that the Government have conceded that London is a special case. They nearly lost the day in Committee. These new clauses and amendments, particularly new Clause 4, do not go as far as the amendments which were proposed in Committee. They merely retain the status quo with regard to sewerage.
I now turn to the other side of the matter—clean water. The structure of clean water supply in London is not at the moment very coherent. There are a number of water bodies—in particular, the Metropolitan Water Board, which is one of the largest water supplying agencies in the country. The Metropolitan Water Board has been run with conspicuous success over 50 years. In effect, it is a local government co-operative. The local authorities, the London boroughs and previously the Metropolitan boroughs, together with the GLC, put representatives on that board to supervise the running of a substantial proportion of London's water supply.
Under the Government's proposals the Metropolitan Water Board will disappear and go into the Thames Water Authority, but the private water companies which supply other parts of London, particularly in the South-West areas, will remain. In their memorandum the local government associations put it to the Minister that, as private water companies can be retained, so equally can local authorities and joint boards. It is illogical, on the one hand, to say that the Metropolitan


Water Board and the Croydon Corporation Water Department shall be absorbed into a vast new regional body and, on the other hand, that the South-West Surburban Water Company, the Sutton Water Company, or whatever it may be, shall be retained and allowed to continue. This is what the Government are saying. Nowhere in the replies that I have seen did they meet the points made by the local authorities in their memorandum.
New Clause 5 proposes that in London the position shall remain much as it is now, but that the Metropolitan Water Board be vested in a Committee of the GLC, which would be logical for London regional government. It will amount to much the same situation because it will be a co-operative venture between the existing local authorities, the London boroughs and the GLC. In other words, new clauses Nos. 4 and 5 seek to retain the successful pattern of water management that obtains inside the Greater London Council area without, I stress, in any way derogating from the overall responsibility of the Thames Regional Water Authority. Specific lines written into the new clauses make it possible and necessary for proper consultation to take place and for the regional water authority to operate and use its powers properly in pursuit of overall water management for the whole of the River Thames area.
It will be for the Minister to explain why this system will not work. I shall try, as it were, to pre-empt some of the points that he may make. The first matter concerns boundaries. There are likely to be certain boundary considerations, but there are none at the moment. The GLC sewerage area is not entirely inside the Greater London area. In some cases it goes beyond it. The difficulty of the North-West Kent drainage area is met in the new clause by the GLC taking over that area of main drainage. That would ameliorate the present boundary situation. The Minister may say that there are others. I grant that there are, but there are now and things work perfectly well in this respect.
The Minister may object to new Clause 5 because it gives the GLC future power to acquire and take over private water

companies inside its area. If he wishes to have another look at the new clause and perhaps to withdraw that power if it particularly annoys him, I should be glad to agree to that. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman has said, and everybody throughout the country has agreed, that a certain amount of rationalisation of water undertakings is right and proper. Indeed, under both this Government and the Labour Government private companies absorbed many local authority undertakings throughout the country. So why should not a local authority take over some of the smaller water companies in the London area? What was done under the previous legislation in terms of rationalisation can be done under this Bill. This illustrates the extent to which this has not been a matter for party politics. Even the Labour Government did not object unduly to the takeover of certain municipal organisations by private enterprise. Therefore, the Minister can hardly object to the reverse happening with the GLC.
I hope that the Minister will accept new Clauses 4 and 5, or certainly one of them. He may find that there is a stronger case for one than for the other. If so, I hope that he will make it clear.
New Clause 7 was tabled in the full expectation that a comprehensive new Clause would be tabled by the Government or the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones). After a long debate in Committee on London matters, the GLC amendments which would have made the GLC its own water authority were lost by only one vote. It was rather a pity that the GLC did not adopt the strategy of the London Borough Association and go for something less comprehensive.
To retain the adherence of some of the Government's supporters, the Undersecretary made what I have called an apparent concession. He said that London's pride had been touched and that it would be right for the Greater London Council to have
executive responsibility for the river amenity and recreation as regards the Greater London Council area.
He added:
it would be right for the Greater London Council and not the PLA to be the managing authority for the surface of the River Thames within the GLC area. In practice, that will


mean the length upstream from the tidal barrier, when it is completed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 1st March 1973; c. 177–178.]
That was the Under-Secretary's concession. He said that advice would have to be obtained on the legislative provisions, but undertook to table an amendment that would incorporate the concession in the Bill.
Unfortunately, we do not yet have the amendment. That is a measure of the speed with which the Government are pushing through the Bill. The concession was made on 1st March, so there should have been reasonable time for the amendment to be drafted. I have heard from the Minister that he is undertaking that it will be made in another place. But, as I had expected it to be moved now, my new Clause 7 is left somewhat in the air.
My new clause proposes a London Thames Committee. The GLC could if it wished—the provision is purely optional— give to a properly constituted statutory committee control of matters concerning the river Thames that it thought appropriate. That kind of provision would make realistic management of London's river possible, perhaps for the first time. Everyone knows, particularly those with concern for the Thames, that much more might be made of the river if only management of the surface and banks, town planning, control of craft and so on could be brought under a single controlling authority.
If the GLC is to be given those powers which the Minister and the Government say they will give it, it would be only right for it to be able effectively to bring together all the agencies and the many varied bodies and persons concerned, statutory and otherwise, to obtain the best advice and for the management to be conducted properly and responsibly. That is what the clause would achieve.
In the expectation that some other powers will be given to the GLC, I hope that, whatever the Minister may say about new Clauses 4 and 5, he will accept new Clause 7, because at least on this subject I think we can all agree.

Mr. Arthur Jones: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) and I found ourselves in a certain accord in Committee. The hon. Gentleman has referred

to it, in less generous terms than I would wish. He accused me of perhaps letting the side down a bit in not putting down amendments.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jones: I hear one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends echoing that criticism, but it was made clear in Committee that there must be a tremendous amount of negotiation with the authorities concerned in the involved question of the use of the surface of the Thames as it flows through the GLC area.

Mr. Spearing: I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman. I was referring to the Government's delay in tabling a new clause. It was a Government responsibility, although the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment in Committee.

Mr. Jones: There has not been enough time yet to deal with what is a difficult and involved question. I understand that the Government have been engaged in a series of discussions with the GLC, the Port of London Authority and the Common Council of the City of London, and that there has been acceptance of the principle that the GLC should be responsible for recreation and amenity on the Thames. I understand that the maximum co-operation has been forthcoming from all those bodies, so I share the hon. Gentleman's high hopes that we shall ultimately see arrangements that he and I wish to ensure. I am not critical of the delay; I think that it is explained by the circumstances to which I have referred.

5.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I shall deal as briefly as possible with new Clauses 4, 5 and 7 and the related amendments.
New Clause 4 takes us back to our many debates in Committee, in that it proposes to create, in the London area at least, a two-tier system of organisation. We debated the matter in some detail, and the Committee came to the conclusion that it was necessary to have all-purpose authorities so that the hydrological cycle as a whole could be managed as one integrated service. Therefore, to the point


of principle I need only reply that a two-tier system, such as the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) proposes, has been considered by the Central Advisory Water Committee, the Government and the Standing Committee, and it has been concluded, at least by the Government side, that such a system would be cumbersome, ineffectual and inadequate.
That is more than illustrated by the difficulties the hon. Gentleman would get into with the West Kent Main Sewerage Board. The geographical, hydrological and administrative arrangements of London overlap one with the other; they are in no sense co-terminous. The new clause would abolish the West Kent Main Sewerage Board and simply take it into the Greater London Council. My advice is that the West Kent authority would strongly resist that.
The subject of new Clause 4 has been debated in Committee, and I can only advise hon. Members once again to reject the proposal.
In new Clause 5 the hon. Gentleman proposes that there should be a split in the supply of water to the public, that the sources should be controlled by the regional water authority but that the supply and distribution should become a matter for the local authority. That proposal falls down rather badly on technical grounds. For example, treatment works are normally linked direct to particular sources of water. Certainly, they have to be managed in conjunction with the relevant water source. Under the new clause, in at least some cases and possibly in most, there would be within a single building pumps which were the water authority's responsibility while the treatment plant was the responsibility of the local authority. That does not make good technical sense. Moreover, a clear line cannot be drawn between the source works and treatment on the one hand and distribution on the other.
A large proportion of London's water comes from underground sources, and the operation of those sources is a critical factor in the overall management of water supplies. But it would not make sense to separate the responsibility for the underground sources from the responsibility for the distribution system in which they are embedded.
Even if the split were technically feasible, there are many strong arguments against it. I need not weary the House by identifying them all. I simply say that it would raise difficulties over the control of the quality of water. To take just one example, if one source provided water of more than a given degree of acidity and the distribution system, controlied by someone else, contained lead pipes, the acidity would need to be neutralised in the course of treatment but it would be less than clear where the responsibility for that would lie.
There is the second difficulty that a split responsibility here would militate strongly against economy in the use of water. An authority which was responsible only for distribution would not have any incentive to achieve an optimum level of distribution losses, taking into account the costs of obtaining extra water. On grounds both of water quality and economy in the use of water, new Clause 5 is not a practical proposal.
In new Clause 7 the hon. Member for Acton had the valuable support of my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones). I can say this about it. My right hon. Friend and I would have wished to move a new clause or a suitable alternative amendment on Report in order to honour the assurance that I was able to give the Committee, namely that executive responsibility for the recreational and amenity aspects of the river within the London area should be provided to the GLC.
What has happened is that my Department has been engaged in extensive consultations with the Greater London Council and the Port of London Authority, and obviously we brought in as well the London Boroughs Association and the Common Council of the City of London. All of them have a considerable interest in what happens on the Thames and all of them would wish, as the House does, to see the opportunities for recreation and amenity on this great river in the capital city promoted in every respect.
I am happy to say that all these bodies are agreeable to the principle that the GLC should be responsible for recreation and amenity on the Thames. That is a useful step forward. But it has become


clear from the discussions which my Department has had that many important matters need to be discussed in much greater detail before we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion to recommend to Parliament. I think that everyone is convinced that here is an opportunity which must not be missed. It is an opportunity to ensure that the Thames will take its rightful place as a great asset for recreation and amenity not only for Londoners but for all those who visit the City. Therefore it is important to get the details right, and it is on that that we are now engaged.
It is our intention to seek to impose on the Thames Water Authority a statutory duty to prepare, within a given time, a scheme for the transfer of the recreation and amenity functions from the Thames Water Authority to the GLC. The Thames Water Authority will be required to do so in consultation with the GLC, the PLA and the other associated bodies. This scheme which will be made, as I have said, on a specified time scale, will be put into effect by means of an order made by the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend will be putting forward an amendment in another place to achieve this.
I should perhaps mention navigation and make it clear that any such scheme would not involve the transfer of the PLA's powers and duties relating to navigation and conservancy, though it would not rule out arrangements about matters relating to recreation and amenity made by agreement between the two bodies.
I hope that the hon. Member for Acton and my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South will agree that this is a sensible way to achieve what we all want. I believe that the other bodies involved will give every assistance in achieving such a scheme. I would have liked to bring forward an appropriate amendment today. However I hope that it is accepted that it is better to get it right and to put it forward in another place.

Mr. Denis Howell: I listened to the debate with interest. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) for raising these important questions. The Minister will know that

there is a little history about the way that this proposal from the Government was hatched up in the dead of night between two sittings of the Standing Committee.
In the first place, in any Bill to reorganise the country's water supplies it is an extraordinary proposal to take away from one regional authority, the Greater London Council, its control over its water supplies, drainage and sewerage. I am glad to welcome the presence of the Secretary of State. He knows the authority extremely well. His appearance on the Treasury Bench enables me to tell him that I am staggered that this should happen under his patronage, although I could have understood it if it had occurred under his predecessor's. The GLC has done an excellent job over many years.
In the course of the argument that we had in Committee we came to realise that the Government were more than a little embarrassed. Many of their supporters on the Government back benches and their friends who then controlled County Hall were righteously indignant about the proposals in the Bill and their effect on London.
Involved in all this is the position of the river Thames. Since London gets so much of its water from the Thames it seemed to us unthinkable that the Greater London Council should not have control not only of its water supplies but of the River Thames which is the source of most of them. We lost the battle in Committee. As a result the GLC is to lose its powers for the supply of water and for the disposal of water and sewage.
Out of the debate in Committee there came one piece of new thinking from the Government as a result of which some of their hon. Friends were persuaded to withdraw their opposition to the main proposals for London's water. It was that the GLC should be given powers over the recreational aspects of the River Thames. I do not wish to be uncharitable. We welcome that as far as it goes. I accept what the Minister said which was that having persuaded the Committee that this was the right course of action in terms of recreational interests he then had very properly to consult all the interested parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton asked why it was that since this proposal was made on 1st March we had not seen any amendment. The answer is that it was proposed in the dead of night as part of an arrangement to deal with the whole of London's water and, having announced it in principle, the Secretary of State then had to engage in consultations with the other authorities which he ought to have held before announcing the proposal in Committee.
We appreciate the difficulties of Ministers when they are engaged in manoeuvres of this kind. It is very proper that the Under-Secretary should get it right and that the other authorities, especially the PLA, should have their wishes taken into account and be properly consulted. As a result, if the amendment says what we believe it will when it is proposed in another place, we shall welcome it.
We very much regret the Government's decision on the main question of London's water, drainage and sewerage. But that is not a battle that we can fight again now since it was disposed of on an earlier occasion.
For the technical reasons that the Under-Secretary has given about new Clauses 4 and 5, probably my hon. Friend the Member for Acton will be well advised not to press them at this stage but to rely in respect of new Clause 7, which has been drafted with a great deal of ingenuity, on the undertaking given by the hon. Gentleman that the main point of principle will be met when the Bill comes back from another place.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Spearing: May I reply, with leave of the House? Despite the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Dennis Howell), I am not convinced by the Minister's technical arguments. He said that we did not want to create a two-tier system in London, but we already have one, so far as new Clause 4 is concerned. He feared that it would be cumbersome, ineffective and inadequate, but the GLC and the LBA believe that the present system works well. There would be some anomalies, but so there would in the Minister's plan. Even the Southern Water Authority will be made responsible for

flood defences in parts of the lower Thames in the area of the Thames Water Authority. History will show, I believe, that the technical arguments do not outweigh mine.
The Minister misunderstood new Clause 5. It would provide not that distribution through pipes rather than treatment works and the supply of river intakes should be with the GLC but that the lot should be, that the GLC should be responsible for the Metropolitan Water Board functions, including pumping stations, filter beds and treatment equipment. I suspect that the Minister knew that but used a quasi-technical argument to rebut the clause.
But there is another reason that I should not press this to a Division. Although I am not convinced by the arguments any more than people in London will be, in due deference to my hon. Friends who want to raise other matters, for which the Government have given us precious little time, I will not waste 12 minutes in pressing it to a Division.
On new Clause 7, I am worried about something that the Minister did not say. I am glad that these consultations are taking place, but the new clause was not an ingenious device to fill a gap. It was something that I hoped the Government would seriously consider and possibly accept in another place.
The Minister dwelt on what he is doing in this respect, but did not say much about the new clause. I hope that he will now tell us the Government's attitude to the new clause. Hon. Members do not carefully work out new clauses which, as the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) was kind enough to say, fit the mood of the House, for Ministers completely to ignore their substance. It is parliamentary bad manners if nothing else. If the Minister does not comment, it means that a new clause has been selected for debate but that the Government have failed to give their views on it.
I do not understand that, and in view of the Government's attitude to the whole Bill, I do not feel inclined to let it go. I hope that the Minister will say now whether the Government will accept something like this clause in another


place. If he does not give the Government's view, what has been said today and in Committee will be lost.
The fact that the Minister makes no attempt to rise is not only parliamentary bad manners but inexplicable. Perhaps I could raise it as a point of order in my own speech—[Laughter.] This is not a matter for humour. I had understood that our procedures allowed for proper debate. It is no laughing matter when a Minister completely ignores a new clause which has been selected for debate.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The new clause has been described rather well as having been left in the air. I have said that, in another place, the Government will move a suitable amendment or new clause to achieve the purposes which both sides of the House, including the

New Clause 8

ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF THE WATER RESOURCES BOARD

' In addition to the functions exercisable by the Water Resources Board by virtue of section 12 of the Water Resources Act 1963, it shall be the duty of the Board to prepare a plan as to action to be taken (whether by way of executing works or securing execution of works by other persons or otherwise) for the purpose of securing more efficient management of water in any area including meeting all future demands for water, and the use of water and restoring or maintaining the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland or coastal waters, and to implement such plans in the following circumstances, that is to say:—


(a) where more than one water authority is involved, whether as receiver or supplier of water, and the work will not, in the opinion of the Board, be executed by the water authorities involved; or


(b) at the request of and with the agreement of those water authorities '.—[Mr. Fan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Farr: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments:
No. 15, in page 6, line 17, leave out Clause 4.
No. 75, in Clause 29, page 32, leave out line 24.
No. 87, in Schedule 3, page 50, line 12, leave out Part II.

Mr. Farr: Taken together, the new clause and the amendments seek to restore the Water Resources Board to the Bill and to remove those provisions setting up a National Water Council. They would not only restore the board in its present state but would provide it with additional powers, which are outlined in detail in new Clause 8. The

hon. Gentleman, want. What he now does with his new clause is a matter for him.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has made himself clear and I am sorry if I misunderstood. The clause is certainly relevant because we are assured that a similar provision will be inserted at a later stage. Therefore, it merited better treatment from the Minister. In view of what I have said about time, I will not press it to a Division, but the Minister and some of his hon. Friends have shown less than courtesy in a place where one expects it. If nothing else, I hope that the Government will either move a similar provision in another place or accept it with alacrity if one is moved by someone else.

Question put and negatived.

new clause seeks to build on the undoubted success of the Water Resources Board.

The board has had a strong independent voice which it has used effectively for a number of years. It has had responsibility for planning at national level. As the Bill is now drafted, the planning and initiative which has been part of the board's work will now rent with the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture.

In "A Background to Water Reorganisation in England and Wales". we were told:
They will establish within the Government service a central water planning unit which will absorb the planning division of the Water Resources Board.

This unit will advise Government Departments, regional water authorities and the National Water Council. I and some of my hon. Friends do not think that


this is enough. We feel that we need a strong, completely independent body like the Water Resources Board.

The board has played a valuable rôle in our affairs in recent years. In the Department of the Environment Report I have mentioned, which was published this year, pages 12 and 13 contain numerous references to the work of the board.

On page 12 it gives an inkling of the beard's participation and forward rôle on reservoir projects. In paragraph 32 on page 12 there is a reference to its thinking and its investigation into the rôle of additional underground sources of water supply. On page 13 in paragraph 36 there is a reference to the valuable work it has done on estuarial storage. It refers to the WRB report on water resources in the North in paragraph 36 on page 13.

We do not have to go back far in the annals of HANSARD before we find a record of numerous interventions and at least one Adjournment debate on the subject of desalination and the wonderful work done by the WRB on this subject which culminated in its booklet published in 1972 and entitled "Desalination", a masterly project. It summarised desalina-ation by saying that the system did not appear to have any suitable or attractive financial prospects at the moment but it indicated that the equation could change and that before very long we might have to consider desalination more seriously. It is this sort of independent and forward thinking which the nation needs on water and which I am fearful we shall not retain if we adopt the proposals set out in the Bill.

Another area in which the Water Resources Board has been active has been in the artificial recharge of aquifers. It is also engaged in the Wash feasibility study and it has been, is and, as far as I can see, will continue to be deeply involved in this vital matter. What will happen when the Bill is enacted and the board disappears I do not know, but a considerable amount of Government money has been allocated to the WRB.

In May 1968 money was provided for a desk study. Later, in March 1971 the Secretary of State for the Environment authorised a full feasibilty study for the Wash project, including the construction

of trial embankments at a cost of about £2·6 millions over six years. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister will know who is to take over this work, but whoever it is I doubt whether they will exceed the energy, zeal and enthusiasm that the WRB has put into the project.

On 5th April the WRB initiated a public meeting in King's Lynn attended by 350 people and designed to keep the public up to date on the Wash feasibility study. The WRB was kind enough to send some hon. Members a report of how it is getting on with its work. I shall not trouble the House with the details, suffice it to say that considerable work is being undertaken. Hydraulic models are being prepared at Wallingford which when approved, probably in September this year, the board expects will be able to start assessing the effect of the four alternative reservoirs that it has in mind for the Wash. This is another aspect of the valuable work which the WRB has been doing.

5.45 p.m.

I fear that if the board is allowed to disappear as proposed in the Bill a similar amount of energy and enthusiasm will not be displayed by any central water planning authority earmarked to succeed the WRB. Other organisations and persons with a close knowledge of water conservation, supply and drainage acknowledge that in the relatively short period it has been in existence the WRB has functioned admirably. The board's three principal merits have been that it is independent of both Government and river authorities, that it has combined all authority under one unified control, and that it has built up a first-class staff of dedicated experts which I fear would be fragmented if the Bill is enacted.

The board's independence has been of considerable advantage to the public and had it not been for pressure from it, it is unlikely, for example, that the investigation of estuarial storage of water would have proceeded as far as it has. The proposed National Water Council is expected to be comprised principally of the chairmen of the regional water authorities plus nominees of the Secretary of State, and its functions are not to be purely advisory. It is clear from Clause 4(9)(b) that if it attempts to advise the Secretary of State on issues unacceptable


to him the council could be required to discontinue such activities. The council will thus be very much a creature of the Government. The water authorities and the Bill therefore have very limited powers to produce an overall water policy, to iron out differences or to arbitrate between authorities in the event of disagreement over any project which extends beyond RWA boundaries.

It is imperative that the national body for water should continue to be the Water Resources Board and that it should be completely independent both of the Government and of the regional water authorities. It has been one of the principle assets of the WRB that it has been independent and has thus been able to act in the interests of the nation as a whole. Officials of the Department of the Environment, admirable though they all are, could hardly be expected to be the best judges of what overall water policy should be in the national interest. There are also considerable merits in having the responsibility for planning and research under the control of an independent body.

I am greatly encouraged by the remarks made by my hon. and right hon. Friends the Ministers during Second Reading when a succession of speakers on both sides paid tribute to the WRB. Hon. Members welcomed the Bill but often with the proviso that the board should be retained. My confidence is restored by my clear recollection of the Minister saying that it was his intention that if there were a strong expression of opinion from the House as a whole on the subject he would clearly reconsider the matter. As it is in the national interest to retain the WRB and its expertise under one umbrella, it is clearly desirable that the Government shoud accept the clause and the amendments.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: There is a great deal of good sense in everything said by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and in his new clause. It is true that tributes were paid on both sides of the House to the Water Resources Board, first because of its independence —something which we shall lose with the National Water Authority—and secondly because of its distinguished record of service. Clause 4 sets up the National Water Council which is a very different animal from the Water Resources Board. In Committee we attempted to do what

the hon. Gentleman is now attempting, although we tried to do it in another way. We tried to do it by grafting on to the powers of the National Water Council many of the powers, duties and functions of the old Water Resources Board.
It is true that much of its independence would have gone, but neverthless the spirit of forward-looking planning that characterised the Water Resources Board would, we hoped, still be evident in the National Water Council. I am convinced that major schemes such as barrages, which even a regional water authority would be hesitant to undertake because of their size, cost and complication, would be ideally suited to the Water Resources Board, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, or the National Water Council following our suggestion involving Clause 4.
During the Second Reading debate the Minister stressed the elementary but important geographical fact that most of our water resources are in the west and north whereas most of the demand is in the east of the country. We hope that this Bill will effect an efficient interchange between the regions so that water can be transmitted more easily and effectively. Although there is some responsibility in Clause 4 for this function it is not nearly enough. Not enough power is given to the National Water Council to effect important future schemes for transferring water.
I am certain that the Government will not accept the hon. Gentleman's clause and I do not know whether it would be the best way of achieving his purpose, in the context of the Bill, which is to leave the Water Resources Board where it is. The hon. Gentleman wants to omit Clause 4 and to dispense with the National Water Council. I am not sure that it would be wise to do it in that way. The spirit of what the hon. Gentleman said is very much in line with what we said on Second Reading and in Committee. Perhaps the Minister can give us some hope that some of the powers of the Water Resources Board and its valuable research will not be lost for ever but that some amendment will be made to Clause 4 on the lines that we have suggested which will accommodate the wishes of ourselves and the hon. Member for Harborough.

Sir David Renton: I tend to agree with what the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said about there being a doubt whether the clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Har-borough (Mr. Farr) is the best way of dealing with the Water Resources Board. I would not go along with him in leaving out the whole of Clause 4. I have great sympathy with Amendment No. 75 which would preserve that board. During Second Reading I was one of those who made what I thought at the time was a rather strong plea for the preservation of the Water Resources Board.
It is interesting to note that Clause 29 was not discussed at all in Committee. Despite its tremendous implications it went through on the nod. I realise that that was during the 19th Sitting of the Committee and perhaps hon. Members were getting a little impatient and wanted the proceedings to come to an end rapidly. That places us under an even greater obligation to consider the matter more carefully now. The Government's intention appears to be to set up the Central Water Planning Unit within the Government service in place of the Water Resources Board. The board comes to an end with effect from April next, I take it. It will then still be engaged in an extremely important feasibility study on the Wash Barrage.
That work is being carried out by this body of independent experts. It is being well done and good progress is being made. Before his present incarnation my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whose attention I would welcome at this moment, shared with me a suspicion about the attitude of the former Ministry of Housing and Local Government towards these important questions of water development. It was not until— with his help and the help of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke)—a few of us managed to get the Water Resources Board to take note of the feasibility of the Wash Barrage that the project got under way.
It took us several years to get this done. Now my hon. Friend is to sweep this away. The reasons he gave in his reply to the Second Reading debate do not add up to a row of beans. I say that with great respect because I greatly

admire the way in which he performs his many duties. He said:
The need for the Water Resources Board arose from there being about 200 statutory water undertakers and 29 river authorities. Reorganisation will reduce their number to a much smaller group of all-purpose authorities.
With great respect, I do not consider that to be an argument in favour of abolition. We might just as well say that because we are establishing rather powerful water authorities which will act together through a National Water Council there is a greater need for completely independent expert advice. It does not seem that my hon. Friend will get this. He went on to say:
What we intend to achieve is that the planning side 
—I wonder whether he can define that—
of the Water Resources Board will be kept, along with other planning agencies, as an independent source of advice to the Secretary of State and the National Water Council."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 156.]
Let us hear his definition of "planning side." It presumably excludes the carrying out of experiments, feasibility studies and operational work such as the Water Resources Board is doing in connection with the Wash Barrage. Presumably it excludes that. It is the planning side of the Water Resources Board which has so far been independent, but which is to become part of the central water planning unit within the Department.
This is too vague. It leaves us in a state of uncertainty as to what the important work of the Water Resources Board is to become in future. We are not told in any way who is to carry on that same sort of work, and we ought to be told before we agree to the abolition of the Water Resources Board. I find it surprising that it should reach Report stage without having had greater clarification of this important matter. Frankly, I think that before this debate ends we should be told with clarity, thoroughness and great precision what is to happen to the various tasks at present performed by these independent advisory and functional bodies.
Therefore, although I would find it perhaps difficult to support my hon. Friend on his new Clause, and not feasible to support him on his proposal to abolish Clause 4. I do go along with him in his suggestion that the Water


Resources Board should be retained, and that therefore the amendment to Clause 29 should be made, unless and until we have the kind of explanations from the Front Bench which I hope will be forthcoming.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) puts me in some difficulty because I had hoped I had explained all this—I hope not at tedious length—during Committee stage. There are columns and columns of it which I have in front of me in which I tried to explain it in some detail. If I am asked to go over all that again I shall detain the House far too long. I will try to deal with some of the points he raised.
May I correct him on one point whilst it is fresh in my mind. There is no question of the Central Water Planning Unit being within the Department or being in Marsham Street. I hope we shall retain the premises at Reading and that the staff of the Water Resources Board will join the new structure, which I hope I can explain further to him.

Sir David Renton: It may be that I owe my right hon. Friend an apology for not having read these columns and columns of speeches, but when I turn to the Committee proceedings I find that there was an extensive debate on an amendment to Clause 4 moved by the Opposition and I find there was no discussion whatever on Clause 29, and, therefore in relation to that, no discussion of the abolition of the Water Resources Board. I must confess that I have not so far come across any explanation as to what this planning function is and how exactly the other functions of the Water Resources Board are to be carried out.

Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps I can refer my right hon. Friend to the report of the Standing Committee on 27th March, columns 552 and onwards, where I tried to describe the three units which were to be set up to undertake—certainly the first two to undertake—the work of the Water Resources Board.
May I now address myself in a little more order to the points which have been put forward. First, may I say at once that I join wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and others who have paid compli-

ments and tributes to the Water Resources Board for all the very efficient work it has done. The country is greatly indebted to it. We are not abandoning that work or abandoning the carrying out of the kind of work which the Water Resources Board has undertaken. There is no question of that being lost for ever— which was one phrase used in the debate.
The Water Resources Board, however, is the wrong structure for the reorganised system. If I may use the phrase, it will be "the King is dead, long live the King". We hope that this work, which has been carried out by the Water Resources Board, will be intensified by the two bodies which we shall be setting up. The new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough refers to the planning functions of the Water Resources Board, but there will be another unit which will take over the resources side of the Water Resources Board.
In dealing with the new clause and the amendments to it, I ought to deal with the planning side because that is what the new clause refere to. As I understand it. The purpose seems to be to retain the Water Resources Board in its present form but to give it some different powers from those which it has at present, in particular to secure co-ordinated planning and the execution of works by the Water Resources Board itself, where more than one water authority is involved, thereby putting a second tier over the regional water authorities. The amendment grouped with this new clause would achieve the additional functions of the board by omitting the clause which establishes the National Water Council—that is Clause 4—by deleting the Water Resources Board from Clause 29 which lists the bodies to be abolished, and consequently by leaving out Part II of Schedule 3 which deals with the administration of the National Water Council.
In all those purposes, the new clause and its grouped amendments would run counter to our proposals for the central structure which I set out in Standing Committee. By retaining the Water Resources Board, the amendments would give it concurrent powers with water authorities to carry out works where the works involved more than one water authority—for example, the estuarial storage or major water transfer schemes. There is power within Clause 4 as it


stands now within the Bill for advice on works of that sort and the carrying out of works which will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State if it covers a matter of national policy.
In one direction, the amendments go too far in that they attempt to set up a strong central controlling body, whereas the Government's view is that with ten large and powerful regional water authorities there is no room for such a body between the Secretary of State and Ministers and the authorities, and that in any event as much responsibility as is practicable should be devolved from the centre. But, in another direction, the amendments do not cover as much ground as the Government's proposals because they make no provision corresponding to that in Clause 25(2) and Clause 26(3) for consultation between the Government and the National Water Council on the rate of return to be achieved by the water authorities and the criteria, and so on, for fixing their charges.
The situation under the new structure of regional water authorities will be quite different from that which we had to face at the time of the Water Resources Act 1963 when the Water Resources Board was set up. In the first place, water conservation was then a rather new function. Now its nature is well understood, and the Water Resources Board's own conspicuous success in organising regional and national water conservation planning means that the new water authorities will not be starting from scratch as were the river authorities a decade ago in 1963.
Secondly, the regional water authorities will cover a much larger area, and much of the Water Resources Board's work in co-ordinating water resources planning and development work of two or more river authorities now becomes a matter for the regional water authorities and an internal matter for the large authorities.
Thirdly, all aspects of water quality control will be united, within the management of water resources in terms of quantity, in one authority for each area, so that the need for co-ordination from the centre will to that extent be diminished.
Fourthly, the regional water authorities will be much larger and stronger in resources and expertise than any of the predecessor authorities, and therefore there will be much less need than there was in 1963 to interpose a strong national body between the regional water authorities and the Government. What we are contemplating under the Bill, which we hope will become an Act, is quite different from that with which we were faced when the Water Resources Board was brought into being in 1963.
As regards national planning, the Water Resources Board is just completing its national strategy, and when it is completed there will be a reduction in that type of work. We shall have, as it were, a blueprint for national planning for many years, and the main problems in planning and action will then be concerned with the improvement of water quality.
Investment in that respect is already twice that in water conservation and supply. Quality problems are necessarily a part of the regional water authorities' responsibilities—that is to say, they have to be tackled river by river, so that action and planning is far more the internal work of the regions, and for the next few years we shall not need so much to develop the national strategy. It will be there for us, having been produced by the Water Resources Board, and consequently central water planning will be concerned with a different range of action than heretofore.
For the purpose of concentrating on the type of planning that we need for the future the Government's view is that the efficient way of taking over that part of the work of the Water Resources Board is to set up this Central Water Planning Unit at a national level. Its function will be to identify and study the main strategic options and thus enable the national strategy to be developed.
The unit's programme will be determined and monitored by a steering committee, the chairman of which will be the Chairman of the National Water Council. For the purpose of management services, the unit will be within the Civil Service, but, after all, the staff of the Water Resources Board are within the Civil Service and they have managed to remain independent. We wish the Central


Water Planning Unit to have the same type of independence.
The steering committee will be charged with ensuring the freedom of the unit to publish its reports and to maintain its independent professional assessments. The scope of the unit will be broader than that of the planning divisions of the Water Resources Board, in that it will cover all aspects of national water planning, with particular reference to issues affecting more than one regional water authority.
6.15 p.m.
That is one of the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough covers in his new clause. This is what we want to deal with under the Central Water Planning Unit. It would be required to identify problems likely to arise in connection with possible long-term developments and to carry out or promote such studies as might be agreed by the Steering committee. The director of the unit will be responsible for the contents of its reports, and all reports will be submitted to the Secretary of State, the National Water Council and the regional water authorities, and will be published. The Secretary of State, with factual reports from this unit, will then seek the advice of the National Water Council in carrying out the national water policy for which he is responsible under Clause 1.
The Government recognise the importance attached to the independence and impartiality of past reports issued by the Water Resources Board, and we agree that this independence must be preserved in the new structure. The proposals for the Central Water Planning unit are designed to ensure that it forms and publishes its assessments independently of both the Government and the water industry. The unit will give factual advice, leaving debate on the wider political implications to be discussed between the Government, the National Water Council and all others affected by and interested in the national water strategy.
I have not dealt with the other two units—the research and data units— because the clause deals particularly with the planning side of the Water Resources Board. I do not think that I can accept the invitation of my right hon. and

learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire to define exactly what I mean by the planning side, but I should have thought that it was obvious from the work done by the Water Resources Board. The board has its own planning side and its own planning department, which can be distinguished from its research department. We shall ask those who take over the Central Water Planning Unit to go a little further in planning than was done by the Water Resources Board in many respects. The position in the next decade should be different from what it was in the past one.
We sincerely hope that the staff of the Water Resources Board will accept the invitation to form the staff of the Central Water Planning Unit so that we retain their expertise, and I hope that we can add to it as the work of the unit, guided by the Steering committee, increases.
On that basis I must ask the House to reject the clause, but not to reject the principles on which my hon. Friend put it forward. My hon. Friend wants an independent expert body. We are providing this, spread over, perhaps, the National Water Council, the regional water authorities and the Central Water Planning Unit, but basically the unit will have the expertise for planning and will give independent and fearless advice.

Mr. Farr: I listened with considerable interest to my right hon. Friend's reply. I was disappointed that he made no direct, reference to the future of the Wash feasibility study, or to desalination, but I assume from what he said that the staff of the new Central Water Planning Unit will consist of those who are on the staff of the existing Water Resources Board and that their responsibilities will be transferred in a similar way. I cannot say that I am satisfied with my right hon. Friend's reply, but so that the House can get on with its business I beg to ask leave to withdraw the proposed new clause.

Motion, and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

NATIONAL POLICY FOR WATER

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, after ' Wales ', insert:
'on the basis of the public ownership of all water resources'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we will take Amendment No. 28, in page 14, line 1, leave out Clause 11.

Mr. Howell: This is an amendment to which the Opposition attach the greatest possible importance, both on grounds of the policy that is involved and, secondly, in consideration of the disgraceful manner in which the Government have exempted private water companies from their proposals.
First, it is quite clear that we cannot reorganise our water supplies except on the basis of the public ownership of water resources. Water is not a commodity which can be manufactured; it is one of the great natural resources available to us. Therefore, it clearly ought to be mobilised where it is needed for use by the country, and it should be owned by the country.
There is an adequate amount of water in this country. Even though, over the holidays, we have been contemplating the excellent spring that we have had and the reports of a water shortage in various areas, we all know that in other parts of Great Britain there is more than an adequate supply of water. The problem is one of planning and harnessing our water resources. Most important of all, it is a problem of the transportation of water from areas of plenty to areas of shortage. That, in a nutshell, is the problem facing us.
We have just had a discussion about the powers of the National Water Council. As we shall return to that subject on Clause 4 I did not want to weary the House by making two speeches where one would do. Nevertheless, we have considerable sympathy with the point of view put forward in the previous debate to the extent that in terms of the problem of harnessing our resources and transporting the water to the places where it is required—the cities and regions, particularly in the Midlands, the South-East, the East and the South-West, which are the shortage areas—the logic of the situation is that a strong national authority is necessary in order to plan the operation and bring it about by means of a water grid system, or some other method of transportation. It is quite clear that once that proposition is accepted it can best be implemented on the basis of the public ownership of water resources,

in order that a strong national water authority may have the resources and powers to enable it to do these things. So we clearly believe that water should be a publicly-owned commodity.
In terms of the Government's proposals for the water resources of this country —proposals to which we object—the Government have to accept the logic of the argument, but for party doctrinaire reasons they have failed to apply the logic over the whole field. They say, "Yes, we quite agree that we cannot bring about a sensible water pattern in this country and a sensible transportation system unless we have a strong national approach. We will therefore take water from the local authorities and the water undertakings of local authorities but we will leave the private companies"—there are 31 statutory water companies in this country—"out of our thinking". That is an absolutely ridiculous way of thinking, and it is almost impossible to understand the arguments of the Government in respect of it.
In order to demonstrate to the House that 31 water undertakings cannot be left out of a national pattern and national ownership, the Government proceed to surround those water companies with all sorts of restrictions. Indeed, the Undersecretary of State said, at the Thirteenth Sitting of the Committee, in regard to the water companies which will be left out of the ownership of the regional water authorities, that the Government would see to it that they would be required to do the bidding of the Secretary of State or the regional water authorities. He went on to say that the obligations he was imposing upon these private water companies included bringing their capital investment programmes under the control of regional water authorities.
In other words, the Under-Secretary of State and the Government say that their proposal to leave private water companies out of public ownership is very much of a nonsense, and that the private companies, although they continue to exist, can be allowed to do so only providing they comply with the directions and planning of the regional water authorities and providing their capital works programme is taken into account alongside all the local authority and public works programmes. If the private companies are


going to be subject to this degree of control and direction—if they cannot spend a major amount of money on capital programmes unless permission for those programmes is considered at the same time as the capital programmes of the public sector—why on earth have the Government left out the private companies? The answer is simple: the Government do not wish to take over the £250 million worth of assets which the private water companies represent. In other words, the consideration of the capital interest in terms of the shareholding interest in the private water companies is to predominate over considerations of policy which ought to be uppermost in the thinking of the Government.
That is an extremely serious deficiency. The private water companies cannot be left to go it alone. Even the Government realise that. Even the Government realise that if there is growth in demand for water in an area served by a private water company the regional water authority—which will be a publicly-based authority—must come to the aid of the private water company. In other words, the continuing profitability of the private company in the future will be sustained by the public sector. That is an extremely serious situation.
I now turn to the arguments for taking over the local authorities. One of the grounds on which the Under-Secretary relied in Committee for leaving out the private water companies was that—and I quote what he said:
We have a technically proficient private water sector which offers good management, good public relations for the most part, high levels of proficiency, and does not make any call on our national capital resources."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th March 1973; c. 677.]
In a sense, of course, local authorities do make a call on our national capital resources, although the money is raised by the water users through the water committee, but everything else he said there applies not only equally but even more to our great local authority water undertakings.
6.30 p.m.
The Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds authorities and the Metropolitan Water Board are all first-class examples of local authority municipal Socialism—if one can use that

terminology, which is very honourable in Birmingham. There, the water undertaking was brought into being by Joseph Chamberlain, who was born opposite the house where I live and had a distinguished career, of interest to many of us in considering the principles and possibilities of municipal Socialism. I hope that some of my colleagues who are now returned to power in various parts of the country will look at what he achieved —not least, the Birmingham Municipal Bank, which also might be an example for them to follow. However, I now return to water. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] After I visit my bank manager, I normally return to water.
Whatever arguments the Minister produces in favour of leaving private water companies in private hands apply with even greater force to the local authorities. We believe in a publicly-owned water industry and our plan would have been to leave the local authorities to manage and own those water undertakings in their own areas within a national central scheme administered by a strong central authority.
Local authorities feel indignant because one of the reasons put by the Government for leaving out private water companies is that it would cost £250 million to include them. The Government are not disposed, therefore, to take these undertakings into public ownership. The local authorities are asking, "What is the difference between a private investor investing in a private water undertaking and the ratepayers of a local authority investing in a publicly-owned water undertaking? Why do not the same considerations apply also to publicly-owned undertakings? "
It is clear that some local authorities which have provided first-class capital works and water supplies for their citizens are in danger of having to pay twice. They have already paid to provide first-class facilities, but under the Government's proposals they may well have to provide new capital works in order to serve those authorities which, the Minister says, have been badly served in the past. There is a strong feeling that an increase in water charges could well be brought about not by improvement in supply and facilities in London, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere, whose citizens have already paid to do


the job in their own areas, but because they will have to pay a further contribution to make up deficiencies of other areas. It is, in effect, asking the ratepayers to pay twice if the Government exempt private water undertakings from the Bill.
This is a sad and lamentable business, and it is not based on any rational appreciation of need but on pure doctrinaire Conservative Party prejudice in favour of the private water companies. It is well known that in the early days it was the first intention of the Government to take all the water undertakings over, both public and privately-owned. We read with great interest of the battles going on in the Cabinet at the time. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was then Leader of the House, was reported to have said at a Cabinet meeting how horrified he was—"My goodness. This is Socialism. We cannot take over all these water undertakings. "In order to prove that the legislation was not Socialism, the exemption had to be made, but because the national plan for water cannot work except on a Socialist basis, the Government have had to hedge around their exemption of private interests with so many controls and restrictions, retaining so much power to themselves and the regional water authorities, that they are making an nonsense of it.
We wish to see our water resources reorganised; we wish to see forward planning in the provision and transportation of water to eliminate once and for all the periods and areas of scarcity which are quite unnecessary; we wish to assert the proposition that all this can be sensibly achieved only on the basis of common ownership of water resources, with a strong authority exercising a national control. In these circumstances, the Government proposal to exempt the private water companies is absurd.

Dr. David Owen: I support the amendment in the sense of the words:
… on the basis of public ownership of all water resources.
My region has been bedevilled by the problem of water supply. This is particularly so because a national park is a major part of our catchment area for water. I therefore speak more in the

context of Amendment No. 1 than of the specific aspects to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) addressed himself in relation to the continued existence of some private water suppliers.
I hope the Minister will recognise that many people, irrespective of political belief, believe that water should now be a nationally owned and controlled asset. I believe that the Bill does not give sufficient central power to the Government. I am particularly concerned about aspects of legislation which has been promoted by water authorities. The concept of the regional water authority is one that I strongly support, although I believe that such an authority should have far greater democratic representation from local authorities.
What causes me concern is that proposals currently being undertaken in the South West may be implemented before the Bill becomes an Act. Will the Minister undertake to halt all proposals from existing water authorities until the regional water authorities take up their position and are able to advise him? I am making particular reference to the proposals from the Cornwall River Board for the reservoir at Bickleigh, supplying Plymouth. We have lived with innumerable proposals affecting water supplies. Swincombe, in the middle of a national park, was proposed to this House as a reservoir but rejected.
The problem needs to be faced, There should be public ownership and public responsibility, with Government responsibility for the legislation providing reservoirs in order to avoid in particular, the vagaries of the private and public Bill procedure when legislation for a reservoir involves a national park or an area of outstanding beauty. The Minister should recognise that existing water authorities are inadequate in scope and power for such a task. As I understand the Bill, any necessary legislation for the provision of reservoirs will be the responsibility of the regional water authorities, under the Government.
I support the amendment because the responsibility for providing the water supply must be with the national Government, in that they undertake whatever legislation is put to them by the regional water authority. They should take that


on as a Government responsibility, and the Bill should be brought forward as a Government Bill which is not subject to the vagaries of the present system. The rights or wrongs of the Swincombe proposals should be decided on the Floor of the House and should not be the responsibility of the regional water authority.
The West Country is undoubtedly short of water, and we shall either have to flood agricultural land or go into a national park. There are, rightly, considerable objections to going into a national park and there are, equally, great problems in flooding agricultural land. It is lunacy to continue with a reservoir policy based on assessing Cornwall and one small part of Devon when we are to have a water authority embracing the whole of Cornwall and Devon which will be taking decisions in 1974. It is foolhardy to go ahead with piecemeal legislation for reservoirs.
The Minister should undertake not to allow any proposals for water supply to go through now but to wait until the regional water authority is able to take a decision. He should couple with that a pledge that in areas where the regional water authority is proposing legislation which affects national parks the matter should become a national responsibility. Taking the advice of the regional water authority and the National Water Resources Board, the Government should bring forward the necessary legislation to provide water for the regions. I hope that the Minister will not place the burden of legislation on to the regional water authority. There is a strong feeling in the South-West that we cannot again go through a procedure in which a great deal of public money is wasted, as happens when a legislative proposal is rejected by the House. The feeling in the West Country is that the Government have taken a view on the water supply, and in that context public ownership of the water supply is crucial.
The public feel that there is need for a national grid, and that it is better to flood one large area than to have a multiplicity of small reservoirs which cause considerable ill-feeling and burdensome and difficult planning inquiries. When national parks are involved expensive legislation frequently has to be put

through the House, and this causes friction and delay. The water authorities never know from where the water will come, and constantly live with a shortage. It is this measure of public and national responsibility that should be injected into the Bill. Legislation is the crucial factor, but there should also be a postponement of decisions by existing water boards until the new regional authority has had a chance to look at the whole complex picture in an area as difficult as Devon and Cornwall.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I rise to support the amendment, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has moved it. I am also glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen). This is a most important amendment which to many of us is central to the Bill.
I cannot understand how the Conservative Party can pretend to be so concerned about the conservation of water resources when the Government propose to leave out of their plans 31 private companies. Already this year great concern has been expressed in the Press and on the radio about water conservation, and the summer has not yet come. That is sufficient evidence that water supply is a national problem. That being so, it should have a national solution which involves taking into public ownership the private water companies.
6.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Small Health referred to some of the problems of transporting water. How are we supposed to transport water from Wales to Birmingham and from one side of the country to the other when it has to go through private company pipes? I am reminded of the negotiations which some United States railroads have to embark upon when they want to run trains from one side of America to the other. That might be quite jolly for American railways and profitable for the American railroad companies that happen to be along the route. It might be fine for the profits of long-distance hauliers on the United States railways. But that arrangement is hardly the basis on which we should conserve and operate scarce water resources in this country.
What has the Conservative Party got against nationalisation now? The Conservative Party used to have moral qualms about public ownership and nationalisation and used to regard them as dirty words, but the Conservative Government have now nationalised Rolls-Royce. They have surely overcome their qualms of conscience about nationalisation. The Conservative Government set up the Atomic Energy Authority. The Conservative Government took into public ownership a couple of shipping companies to provide a nationalised shipping fleet for British Road Services 15 years ago. The Conservative Government propose to put public money into BSA. They have surely overcome their moral qualms about public ownership. Is it that one or two political contributions are coming into the Tory Party from the water companies? Have one or two hon. Members opposite shares in some of the private water companies? Is that the reason? I cannot think of a reason why the Conservative Government cannot take over the private water companies if the conservation of water is so vital.
Private water companies have had a pretty poor record in new investment. When some of them get into difficulties —as some inevitably will, with the growing water shortage—the poor old ratepayer will have to bail them out. Why should public money coming from working class pockets be used to help to bail out the shareholders of private water companies? If private water companies cannot manage without the paraphernalia of restrictions and the encouragement of public money, they should not be allowed to exist.
The Conservative Government have already admitted that they have to do this propping up of private water companies. I am not content that our water supply should be provided on the basis of private water companies being propped up by the contributions of ratepayers. If the ratepayers or the taxpayers are to prop them up, let the ratepayers and taxpayers take them over and own them. That is a far more logical solution.
This decade is increasingly becoming one of environmental concern. We are told now that we must be careful about conservation and about the use of future

oil supplies. We are told that we must be careful about the usage of future water supplies. The shortage of scarce resources, which has been apparent to many of us for a long time, has always been to me one of the most fundamental and one of the best arguments for Socialism.
I am not content to have scarce resources dished out by private competing companies. If we are to have scarce resources used efficiently by all the people who live in Great Britain, and not just the shareholders of private water companies, we must have complete public ownership of the means of distribution and of the means of the production.
I am glad that the amendment has been moved. I am glad to give it my fullest public and private support. I shall be happy to support my hon. Friend in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) who proposed the amendment began by describing Joseph Chamberlain as a great municipal Socialist. If that is the kind of Socialism that he espouses, I can only say that the Conservative Party would be happy to claim the Socialism of Joseph Chamberlain at any time and in any place.

Mr. William Wilson: Are we to understand that the Conservative Party will now set up municipal banks throughout the country?

Mr. Griffiths: I leave that to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) raised an important point about water resources in the South-West. He will know that I met recently a deputation from that area along with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). I was able to say to the deputation that the Cornwall River Authority had consulted the Devon River Authority and that it will be putting forward evidence on the regional implications at the public inquiry which will seek the necessary powers.
The House should also know that I was able to tell that deputation that my right hon Friend intends to call in any planning applications and, of course, in any event the application for a water order would come to my Department. I hope that meets the main point which


the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton made.
National ownership has been urged by a number of Opposition hon. Members

Dr. David Owen: The major point which I was making was about legislation and particularly if legislation should involve a national park. Will that be the responsibility of Government or will the Government continue to make that the responsibility of the regional water authority? Will he consider that aspect?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get on with my speech he will get an answer to his question. I was about to answer the main point of the debate, which is the contention that our water resources should effectively be taken into national ownership. May I remind the House of what the Bill does? It starts by saying specifically in Clause 1
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to promote jointly a national policy for water in England and Wales and so to discharge their respective functions … to secure the effective execution of that policy…
Within that policy the regional water authorities are instruments. The responsibility for the national policy rests clearly with my right hon. Friend. There is no division between the two sides of the House that our national water resources need to be managed by a national strategy for which the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have a joint responsibility.
I now turn to the debate about the position of the statutory water companies. There are at present some 31 companies. They include some of the largest and most efficient water companies in the country. They provide about 22 per cent. of all the public supplies. They do so by means of large sums of private capital that have been put together over the years at no cost either to the national Exchequer—that is the British taxpayer —or to the local authority—namely the ratepayer. The House must decide whether we should get any more water any more efficiently if we were to expropriate all of the assets and property of the private water companies. I am convinced that simply to provide from the

Exchequer about £250 million to take over the private companies, which are doing a good job, is a wholly unnecessary use of public funds and would provide no more water.
There is a good reason for placing the water companies under the proper controls of the new regional water authorities. The Bill provides, first, that there will be the arrangements under Clause 11, which will be agreed between the companies and the water authorities or, in the absence of that agreement, the matter will be determined by the Secretary of State. Secondly, certain functions of the Secretary of State under the Water Acts will be transferred to the new water authorities—namely, the power to require those private companies to carry out surveys, to supervise their bulk supplies and to take over all the functions of the private company if it were to be in default of its obligations.
Thirdly, the regional water authority in each case will take over the function which the river authorities at present exercise in relation to the private water companies, including—and this is very important—the licensing of their abstractions of any water. Fourthly, the new regional water authorities are given new power to take over compulsorily any source belonging to a private water company, subject, of course, to something that Opposition hon. Members always leave out when they discuss this matter, namely, the payment of appropriate compensation to the company.
In addition, the Secretary of State will approve the capital investment programmes of the water companies, which should be submitted to him by the regional water authorities in co-operation with their own programmes. With that combination of controls, and the fact that the companies will retain their financial independence, I believe that we shall achieve the retention of useful agencies without costing the taxpayer and the ratepayer wholly unnecessary and large amounts of money.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the efficient and the productive record of investment of the private companies. Assuming, as I think we have to assume, that we shall have to have substantial investment in both water


conservation and water production and distribution, is the hon. Gentleman confident that the private water companies can provide themselves with all the capital resources necessary for new investment? If they cannot do so themselves, and if the resources for new investment have to come from public money, will it not be yet another case where every time we ask Questions in this House about the way in which a private company is spending money we are told that it is a management matter and that the Minister cannot tell us?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Griffiths: Private water companies will continue to obtain their funds as they do at present, in the market and will continue to discharge their functions within the legislation. In the event of their being in default of their obligations under the Bill, they may be taken over or may be given directions, but there is no question of their receiving cross subsidies from public funds. On the contrary, there is no reason to suppose that at all.
I wish to deal with one other point, namely the different position of the local authority water undertakings. The difference is that the local authority water undertakings are already in the public sector, and there is no question of large sums of money being required to compensate private share holders for the assets which they possess. It would be quite improper to place democratically elected bodies under the constraints which I have just described.
The central issue between us—and there is no doubt that it divides the two sides of the House—is the fact that the Labour Party proposes simply to nationalise the lot. We see no reason to do so. We believe that it is possible to provide, within the overall control of the regional water authorities, the efficient continuation of these private companies within the constraints which I have described. We see no reason at all why £250 million should be provided to nationalise them. We do not believe that it would provide any more water. We are interested to hear that this is the Opposition's policy, although at no stage have they indicated where they would find the money. Therefore, I must ask the House—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he confirm that in the past there has been adequate co-operation between the municipal water authorities and the private companies—companies which came in for totally unjustified criticism from the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield)—and that they have shown more than lip service both in terms of water conservation and environmental matters?

Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend that they have done a good job. The point that separates the two sides is the proposal by the hon. Member for Nuneaton to nationalise the lot. He has not indicated whether he will pay fair compensation, or indeed any compensation. It is our view that it is unnecessary to nationalise them and that there is nothing to be gained by providing £250 million of taxpayers' money for the purpose.

Mr. Denis Howell: If the hon. Gentleman believes that compensation is so important for private companies, why does he propose to take over every local authority water undertaking in the country without paying one penny compensation to the ratepayers?

Mr. Griffiths: The simple answer is that the local authority undertakings are already in the public sector.

Dr. David Owen: The Minister has still not replied to the question about legislation. He implied that he would come on to the matter later in his remarks, but he still has not addressed his mind to the point. Will he say whether he is prepared to take national responsibility for legislation which a regional water authority might wish to bring before the House?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Bill, he will see that the responsibility for the comprehensive development of water resources in each of the regional water authority areas rests with those new authorities which will be able to look at the matter over a much wider area. At the end of the day there is a reserve responsibility on the Secretary of State.

Question put, That the Amendment be be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 145, Noes 174.

Division No. 112.)
AYES
17.04 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Kannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hardy, Peter
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett Joel (Heywood and Roylon) 
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Baxter William
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooson, Emlyn
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bishop, E S.
Howell, Denia (Small Heath)
Prentice, Bt. Hn. Reg.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
Prescott, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) 
Price, William (Rugby)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Probert, Giles


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Radice, Giles


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
 Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roderick Caerwyn E. (Brc n&amp;R' dnor)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rose, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Clark, David (Coine Valley)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rowlands, Ted




Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)




Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda. W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald



Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kerr, Russell
Sillars, James


Dalyell, Tam
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Spearing Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leonard, Dick
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Steel, David


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)



Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dormand, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McBride, Neil
Summer skill,Hn.Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ewing, Harry
Mackie, John
Tinn, James


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Fitch Alan(Wigan)
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marsden, F.
Wellbeloved, James 


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitlock, william


Garrett, W. E.
Mikardo Ian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, lichen)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Hamilton William (Fife, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Miehacl Cox.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Grieve, Percy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack
Grylls, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gurden, Harold


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Drayson, G. B.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Benyon, W.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biffen, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Haselhurst, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Havers, Sir Michael


Body, Richard
Farr, John
Hicks, Robert


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hiley, Joseph


Bray, Ronald
Fidler, Michael
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Brewls, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Holt, Miss Mary


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hordern, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, Richard


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Carlisle, Mark
Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John


Chapman, Sydney
Fowler, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Churchill, W. S.
Fox, Marcus
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone) 
 Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clegg, Walter
Gardner, Edward
Kimball, Marcus


Cooke, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Cooper, A. E.
Gower, Raymond
King, Tom (Bridgwaier)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Cormack, Patrick
Gray, Hamish
Kirk, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Green, Alan
Kitson, Timothy




Knox, David
Page. Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart-Scolt, Col. Sir M.


Lamont, Norman
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stuttalord, Dr. Tom


Lane, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Sutcliffe, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tebbit, Norman


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple, John M.


Loveridge, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Luce, R. N.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


MacArthur, Ian
Ralson, Timothy
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McCrindle, R A.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McLaren, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Waddington, David


Madel, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mather, Carol
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts Wyn (Conway)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rost, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott-Hopkins James
Wiggin, Jerry


Mitchell David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Michael (Se' b' gh&amp;Whitby)
Wilkinson, John


Moate, Roger
Shersby Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Monks, Mrs Connie
Simeons, Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Monro, Hector
Sinclair, Sir George
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Montgomery, Fergus
Sorel Harold
Woodnutt, Mark


Morrison, Charles




Mudd, David
Speed, keith
Worsely, Marcus


Murton, Oscar
Spence, John
Younger, Hn. George


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sproat, Iain



Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Normanton, Tom
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N,)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Mr. Micheal Jopling.

Question accordingly negative.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 14 and insert:
bodies responsible for the matters mentioned in those subsections'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Page: In Committee, as a result of constructive speeches from both the Opposition and the Government sides, I said that I should like to re-examine Clause 1(2). This amendment to subsection (1) deals with a point that came up in the course of that re-examination. It makes clearer the exact responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They have a duty to secure the effective execution of the various elements of a national policy assigned to them in subsections (2) and (3). The amendment aims to identify the position of the executive authorities in this chain of responsibility. Although only a drafting amendment, it is of importance in producing a reasonable understanding of the purpose of Clause 1.
Amendment No. 3 deals with the words "coastal waters". The use of that term in subsection (2)(c) was a little confusing.

We do not need it there. "Inland waters" covers what is necessary by, as it were, transferring a definition from the Water Resources Act 1963. As defined there, "inland waters" include everything which comes within the river authority areas. That is then translated by the Bill into everything which comes within the regional water authority areas, and that is described in Schedule 2.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I recall that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Standing Committee on the Water Resources Bill when there was discussion about estuarial waters. May I ask whether this definition covers estuarial waters and up to what point?

Mr. Page: Yes, it covers estuarial waters within the river authority areas. The river authority areas were defined by schedules and plans to the 1963 Act. The definition includes estuarial waters within the regional water authority areas.
The jurisdiction of the water authorities, particularly regarding water pollution and its control, could be extended by the proposed Environmental Protection Bill. We are leaving the definition of "inland and coastal waters" so far as it refers to fisheries within the Bill. That extends six miles out from the coast. If we introduce something of that kind in the Environmental Protection Bill, which I hope will be before the House early next session, we may have to amend this legislation in the course of that Bill. I give


that warning. I do not think that we should do it in this Bill. I suggest that we stick to the definition of "inland waters" here and see how it works out in the Environmental Protection Bill.
I turn to Amendment No. 4. In Committee the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) pressed for "amenity" and the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), with great diligence throughout the whole of the Committee proceedings, pressed for "navigation" to be added to the list of matters in the paragraphs of subsection (2).
I quibbled over the expression,
use of inland water for amenity",
in the same sense that one uses it for recreation, but I agreed that "amenity" should be referred to at this point in the Bill. I hope that the way with which it has now been dealt,
the enhancement and preservation of amenity in connection with inland water", is the right way to use that phrase.
The use of the word "navigation" is now justified in the way in which it is introduced in the new paragraph (f), referring to
the use of inland water for navigation".
I do not believe that any difficulties will be created elsewhere in the Bill by general terms like that. Amendment No. 59 is an amendment to Clause 21, which will now contain words similar to those in Amendment No. 4—
in the enhancement and preservation of
the amenities.
These are drafting amendments, but they concern matters that gave us some trouble in Committee. I hope that I have been able to dispel the difficulties that hon. Members on both sides found then.

Mr. Denis Howell: I thank the Minister for his consideration of the matter.
We were confronted time and again with the fact that it was right that the waterways should be used for recreational and navigational purposes. I am glad that the Minister has met the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) on that. In particular, we wanted to distinguish between recreational use and amenity. It must be right for people to have water just to look at, to sit and observe the passing scene, as distinct from using it for purely

recreational purposes. I am glad that the Minister has written that into the Bill, and I thank him on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr. Spearing: I add my thanks to the Minister for adding the excellent new subsection 4(f), which covers the points on which I had to spend some time. I thank him for a handsome and full recognition of the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 2, leave out ' and coastal waters' and insert ' water '.

No. 4, in line 3 at end insert—
'(e) the enhancement and preservation of amenity in connection with inland water; and
(f) the use of inland water for navigation'.— [Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 2

ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER AUTHORITIES

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 12 leave out paragraph (b) and insert
'the Welsh Authority shall exercise their functions as respects the whole of Wales in full consultation with the Severn/Trent Water Authority and other appropriate regional water authorities '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss the following:
Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 15 after ' Authorities ', insert
'and the area of the Severn River Authority situated in the Principality of Wales'.
Amendment No. 50, in Clause 19, page 23, line 1, leave out
'after consultation with the Severn-Trent Water Authority'.
Amendment No. 51, in page 23, line 3 leave out
'of the rights of both authorities to the use '.
Amendment No. 52, in page 23, line 5, at end insert
'and shall carry out any such plan after further consultation with Severn-Trent Water Authority'.
Amendment No. 53, in page 23, line 6, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment No. 54, in page 23, line 7, leave out' Severn-Trent Water Authority' and insert ' Severn River Authority'.
Amendment No. 55, in page 23, line 8, leave out ' agreed between them' and insert
'laid down by the Welsh Water Authority'.
Amendment No. 56, in page 23, line 9, leave out from ' authority ' to end of subsection.

Mr. Rowlands: It has been the boast of the Government, and of the Secretary of State in particular, that in the Bill the Government are establishing a truly Welsh national water authority to deal with all the water resources in Wales. In one of his brief interventions on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that all the water resources in Wales would be put under the control of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. Unless our amendment is accepted, that statement and the boasts about the authority will grossly mislead hon. Members and the Welsh people.
The proposed area that the authority covers leaves out a major and most publicly sensitive area of water resources in Wales—the Severn Basin—which will remain under the authority of the Severn-Trent Water Authority. Unless the Government accept the amendment, the Welsh people will feel that they have been misled by the establishment of the Welsh National Water Development Authority.
The arguments for leaving out the area were rehearsed in Committee by the Minister of State, who said that he wanted to maintain the so-called hydrological principles in the Bill. But the Government have never faced the practical problems and the problem of the relationship between the Severn-Trent Authority and the new Welsh National Water Development Authority. There was a promise in Committee that the Severn-Trent Authority would be restricted, but its area remains unchanged.
Many basic services in mid-Wales— sewage disposal and the sewerage services, and the water supplies of Montgomeryshire—that are now the responsibility of local water boards and local authorities not only will not belong to and be the responsibility of the Welsh National Water Development Authority but will belong to and be the responsibility of a river authority stretching from Llanidloes to Scunthorpe. I made that point in Committee, but no change has

been made. The responsibility for this, the most sensitive water area in Wales, will remain with a monolithic and incredibly remote and powerful authority. The fact that the Government have not changed the boundaries or scope of the Severn-Trent Authority is an additional practical reason why we should partition the area of that authority within the Welsh border and make it the responsibility of our National Water Development Authority.
There is a further practical point with which Amendment No. 52 in particular is concerned. One of the simplest and most reasonable requests we made in Committee was that if it could not have the whole responsibility for water in the area the Welsh National Water Development Authority should have the executive responsibility for recreational development of water resources in the area. We quoted the concession made by the Government on London, and said that although the areas were very different in nature the arguments were the same.
The Welsh authority has the responsibility for drawing up an overall plan for the recreational use of water in Wales, but it will not have executive responsibility for carrying out that plan in one of the areas where there are the greatest opportunities of recreational development, and where the greatest advantages can be gained, particularly in relation to Clwedog and other water resources in the area left outside the scope of the authority. The Government's failure to make amendments giving the Welsh authority executive responsibility for at least the recreational aspects of water resources in the area adds a point to the case we made in Committee.
Not to change the boundaries is to make a nonsense of the idea of a Welsh water authority. The Minster presented the so-called hydrological argument, which he claims to be the basic principle of the Bill, and which he says he does not wish to break. He has argued that he has left parts of England—the Dee and the Wye Valley—under the Welsh water authority to preserve that principle. But in every other respect the Welsh authority destroys the principle of the Bill. We see no reason why he cannot go one stage further and complete the process.
The general argument advanced in favour of the proposed unified, one-tier regional water authority is that it will plan everything from the source to the tap and have a common, unified administration. That principle is broken by the Welsh water authority. We make no complaint about that. We agree that in trying to create a national authority the principle should be broken for special Welsh reasons. But we note that the principle is broken. We shall, for example, have the absurd situation in which Liverpool's water supplies in Wales, in Lake Bala, will be the responsibility of the Welsh water authority, whereas down the road at Lake Vyrnwy, which is also Liverpool's water, the responsibility is that of the Severn-Trent Authority. We see no rationale behind the proposals. We see the destruction of some of the principles on which the Bill is generally based, in the special interest of Wales. If other principles can be broken to accommodate special Welsh interests, surely the water resources of an area about which there has probably been more public debate in Wales than any other should be the responsibility of the Welsh national authority.
On this basis we ask the Secretary of State to review his decision and to accept our amendments, which are drawn from hon. Members representing all parts of Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts them he may be able to boast with the full support of a consensus throughout Wales that he will have establish a Welsh national authority. If he does not accept the amendments I fear that he will be selling basic, fundamental Welsh interests down the river. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind, to reverse the decisions made in Committee and to agree now that the only way he can establish a Welsh water authority is by ensuring that the whole of Wales is included in that authority.

7.30 p.m.

Sir Clive Bossom: Now that we are discussing this new Welsh authority in respect of the whole of Wales there is another point that must be made, namely, that an English authority is being tacked on to this new Welsh authority. The Wye River Authority and the Hereford Water Board have been run extremely efficiently and smoothly in past

years, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State knows that they are against the Bill in principle.
Now that the Bill is almost a fait accompli I know that Herefordshire will work closely and co-operate in full with the new Welsh National Water Development Authority. However, although the exact constitution of that new authority is not being determined in the Bill, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has personal knowledge of the problem, will confirm that Herefordshire will have full representation on the new Welsh authority.
We require a local man who has local knowledge, who is familiar with our area and with our very special problems, and who will be able to put forward the English case and speak for Herefordshire. I do not say anything against our Welsh colleagues. However, we feel strongly that we want an English voice on the new Welsh authority.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I recognise and sympathise with the very reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Give Bossom). I am sure that he will be given reasonable English representation on the authority. I might add that the Opposition would be more than prepared to exchange the small bit of England being tacked on to Wales for the vast area of Wales which is to be given over to the Severn-Trent Water Authority.
I warmly support the well-argued case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands). One of the great advantages that we enjoy in Wales, apart from the quality of the inhabitants, is the amplitude of our water resources. It is one of our great national assets. As I said on Second Reading, if we were paid properly for the water that we export, Mid-Wales would be as rich as some of the Gulf sheikhdoms.
We have never been selfish about our water in Wales. Over the years water has been piped from Wales to meet the needs of the great industrial centres of England. However in the past we have resented the fact that this was done without regard to a coherent plan, without adequate local consultation and on occasion against the wishes of hon. Members


representing Welsh constituencies in this House and against Welsh public opinion.
Private Bill procedure has been used in this House to flout the aspirations of the Welsh people. Some of our grievances were removed by the Water Resources Act 1963. Others were removed by the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales who could resist schemes which were offensive to the Welsh people. I pay tribute to the present Secretary of State for Wales for resisting the proposal to drown the Dulas Valley. It is worth pointing out that during the time when James Griffiths, then the right hon. Member for Llanelly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) and I were Secretaries of State for Wales no Welsh valley was inundated. In other words, a Secretary of State who is sensitive to the mood and aspirations of the Welsh people can now resist the drowning of Welsh valleys.
This matter was debated in detail nearly ten years ago, on 18th July 1963. The Government of the day rejected the plea that Wales should be treated as one unit. Now, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil pointed out, we have trotted out again the same old arguments that we heard then. The Minister of State made these old points in his speech in Committee. We are told that geography is against us. We are told that for hydrological reasons Wales cannot be dealt with as a national entity. But there is good authority for the contrary view. The Welsh Water Advisory Committee prepared a report some years ago at the Government's request and conducted a detailed hydro-logical survey of Wales. The Committee found that there was no overriding argument for not dealing with Wales as one hydrological unit.
The Secretary of State and the Minister should go back to that report and read it carefully before the Bill concludes all its stages. It seems incredible that after the years since that report was made available to the Government and the debates on the Water Resources Bill took place, the Government should persist with this scheme for an elephantine Severn-Trent authority. Like the Bourbons, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. They propose to detach from Wales

the most sensitive, and in terms of water the most valuable, area of mid-Wales. They propose to set up a Welsh National Water Development Authority and at the same time to emasculate it by depriving it of authority over a large part of the Principality. The Indians have been protesting in Wounded Knee about something far less during past weeks.
Functions which are enormously important to the communities of mid-Wales are to be determined and operated by an authority the majority of whose members have no knowledge of them and no community of interest at all. Nottingham, Scunthorpe and Birmingham will dominate the villages of mid-Wales. The land of Howell Harris and Ann Griffiths will be at the mercy of the heirs of Robin Hood. But in any case, this is a piece of political banditry.
It is inconceivable that sewerage schemes in Montgomeryshire should be decided by this vast authority. It is offensive that amenity and recreation in the beautiful upper Severn Valley is to be outside the jurisdiction of the Welsh Authority. I understand that a Welsh plan for recreation and amenity is to be drawn up by the Welsh Authority in consultation with the Severn-Trent Authority. But the execution of that plan for mid-Wales will be the responsibility of the Severn-Trent Authority. This is an unnecessary insult to Wales which the Government will regret. At the very least, this function should have been retained fully in Wales. That would have been administratively quite practicable.
I cannot understand how the Secretary of State and the Minister of State came to agree to this. They and their officials had ample opportunity when the Bill was being drafted to consider the implications. They must have considered the Welsh aspects of the Bill, yet in cold blood they have decided to hand over a vast area of our country to this enormous, English-dominated authority. How did they ever come to do it, when all the trends and tendencies in Wales, Scotland and parts of England are towards decentralisation? I cannot understand it.
We appreciate the difficulties of Ministers, who frequently have to make compromises, but, on an issue like this, when they are responsible for representing the Welsh point of view in Cabinet and in


Cabinet Committees, they have surrendered something of enormous value to Wales to an authority with scanty Welsh membership. They have sold the pass in a disgraceful way. This shows an insensitivity to Welsh feeling that is quite shocking. Where there is a will to do something in Government, there is a way.
The hydrological argument, although is has sound validity, is not over-riding. The rivers of Europe as well as those of Britain run East and West. It is perfectly practicable to devise administrative methods of overcoming the difficulty. There is neither the will nor the imagination in the Government to meet Welsh wishes and we shall demonstrate our disgust at what they have done in the Lobby.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) spoils a good case by overdoing it. It is difficult not to have a good deal of sympathy with his view that Welsh water nationalism should receive all the respect due it. I was delighted that the Government chose a solution of an all-Wales water authority—

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: It is not all-Wales.

Sir A. Meyer: But the plain fact is that rivers are no respecters of frontiers. They run across frontiers. Wherever the Government decided to draw the line, it would have upset a lot of Welshmen or a lot of Englishmen. If we are honest, we must admit that the solution that the Government have chosen, although obviously open to criticism from English or Welsh, is about the most sensible which could be devised.
What matters above all, surely, is that we should make the best possible use of our scarce water resources. It would be tragic if, by elevating water nationalism into some kind of sacred principle, we placed any obstacles in the way of schemes which could improve the water supplies generally and, in particular, if this kind of reasoning were used to delay one of the most urgent decisions that the Government have to take—namely, to go ahead with the Dee Barrage scheme, which can provide a vast quantity of new water supplies without flooding any more Welsh valleys. Therefore, I hope

that, from now on, a little common sense will prevail in this debate.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Normally, one would listen to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) with some attentiveness on various issues, but since some time ago he saw the solution to the economic problems of Wales in transporting more people to Slough, I am not interested in his defence of this Government's policy towards water administration in Wales.
This is clearly an important matter and has been for a generation or more. It is a problem that has aroused tremendous feeling and has been manipulated and played upon by people of a certain political persuasion in Wales when the situation was ripe for that kind of development. What is remarkable is the tremendous silence from the so-called patriots of Wales over the last few months when a part of Wales was being handed over to an English authority.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Would the hon. Member agree that the Nationalists have had a good deal to be silent about?

Mr. Jones: One could follow that interesting remark in some detail. When that body of people has lost its president, its chairman and Mr. Emrys Roberts in local elections, it should certainly be silent.
If this situation had arisen under the Labour Government, one could just imagine the outcry in Wales from these people. Now, the situation is completely different. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State can count themselves lucky on having allies, for some reason known only to members in that movement in Wales who have shouted on this issue for a generation or more.
I am not greatly enamoured of the concept of the Welsh National Water Development Authority, because it is a nominated authority. In addition even the chairman will be at the mercy and the whims of the Secretary of State. He will be the Secretary of State's appointee. This kind of situation in the Principality has to end. One looks forward to the day when water resources, conservation, distribution and development in Wales will be under the aegis and control of an elected authority.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) mentioned the insensitivity of Ministers but when they have seats in England that is understandable. The hon. Member for Flint, West said that rivers were no respecters of frontiers. This is true, but I am not sure why the Minister of State for Wales has taken it upon himself to defend an English interest in terms of the frontier rather than defend, as he should, that part of Wales which is now to be attached to an English authority.
It is ridiculous that Lake Vyrnwy and Lake Clywedog, which everyone accept are in the heartland of Wales, are to be the responsibility of the Severn-Trent Authority, that the execution of plans for recreation and water resources in a significant and important part of mid-Wales will be the responsibility of that authority.
My hon. Friends have mentioned the community of interest in this matter. The Severn and Trent Authority, which stretches to the east coast of Britain will have to deal with the problems of mid-Wales. I trust that in his reply the Minister of State will tell us how he imagines that authority will give equal time to the needs of mid-Wales in the vast areas with which it is concerned and over which it has control. Clearly if the Government are not prepared to accept an all-Wales authority they can change the priorities and change the onus of proof.
As I read the situation the Severn and Trent authority will administer the water resources of this part of mid-Wales after consultation with the Welsh Development Authority. Surely it would have been just as possible for the Welsh authority to have been responsible for that part of mid-Wales afte consultation with the Severn and Trent Authority. Why should the Severn and Trent Authority make the running and possibly over-rule the Welsh Authority on a part of Wales, when clearly the situation could just as easily have been the other way round? This part of Wales should also be under the control of the Welsh Authority and where there was a clash of interests involving the Severn and Trent Authority obviously commonsense would prevail and the Severn and Trent Authority would have to be consulted.
A plan is to be prepared for all Wales in connection with recreation. The Severn and Trent Authority is responsible for making sure the plan is carried out in areas of mid-Wales. I trust that the Minister of State will tell us why he thinks this is advisable and how he considers it to be to the benefit of mid-Wales. Where will the Secretary of State's interest lie in any collision course or in any difference of opinion between the Severn and Trent Authority and the Welsh Authority?
Perhaps I could remind the Minister of State of his record over the last two or three years. I am not sure that he will act on the side of the Welsh Authority because he significantly failed to defend Welsh interests on this issue in the Cabinet. The onus of proof clearly lies with him to tell the people of the Principality why a portion of mid-Wales—as hon. Members have said, a politically sensitive areas of mid-Wales and of Wales generally in terms of water distribution, development and so on—

Sir A. Meyer: Like so many other Labour Members the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) keeps talking about a politically sensitive part of Mid-Wales. Does he mean a seat that his party is frightened of losing to the Welsh Nationalists?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Flint, West has not been in Wales long enough. Before we can discuss this matter with him at any serious level he will have to read up Welsh history of the last 20 years to find out what we mean by "politically sensitive ". Perhaps he can take a crash course on this subject from some of his allies in other organisations in Wales.
The Welsh people feel, and they have felt for a long time, that the valuable resources we have at our disposal are a part of our heritage and should be planned by a Welsh authority. While we have been prepared to share water with Liverpool and Birmingham there is a fear that areas have been manipulated for various reasons. In reply the Minister of State must say why he wants to hand over this particular area to an English-dominated authority and what justification he has for believing that such a move will ultimately be in the best interests of the people of mid-Wales.

Mr. John M. Temple: Representing the constituency that I do I am forced to admit that on Second Reading I said that I was perfectly happy that the City of Chester should have its water administered by an all-Welsh water authority. However, my anxiety is growing because I had not realised the extreme nationalist views which would be expressed in the debate, and I must ask the Opposition to make it perfectly clear that they will be generous and kind to the City of Chester. Following the views that have been expressed there will be anxiety that the city will be dominated entirely by Welsh thinking. I cannot think that that could happen, but I am anxious. The speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) was extreme and nationalistic about this issue and I hope that in due course whoever speaks from the Opposition Front Bench will allay our fears on the matter.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I thank the hon. Member for giving way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The hon. Member has sat down. Mr. Hooson.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The area under discussion is entirely within my constituency. It is easy to have a great deal of levity in the debate, but we are discussing a serious matter. The long-term consequences could be serious and I believe that the Government are making a grave error in what they are doing. It is not so much an error of common-sense when viewed dispassionately, but it is a grave psychological error. Even at the eleventh hour it would be wise for them to accept the amendment or something like it and to change the pattern. If they do not the Secretary of State could go down in Welsh history not as the man who introduced a Welsh water authority for Wales but as the man who excluded the Severn basin from that authority.
This is not an easy problem and of course rivers are not respecters of national boundaries. However, I do not believe there has been any difficulty, for example, in the administration of the Rhine, which rises in Switzerland, flows through Germany and goes out to the sea through Holland. There never has been any difficulty in administering those rivers which

run between Canada and the United States. There has been no difficulty about the Danube. All water development in the past decade has taken place in the upper Severn basin. The Clywedog reservoir was established there. The next proposition, the Dulas reservoir, which was not accepted, was again in the upper Severn basin.
It makes for administrative convenience to have water authorities following a hydrological pattern. Thus a river basin is put under one administration. But to adopt that approach in this context is to ignore the reality of political life. I live in an area where it is impossible in most parts to receive reasonable television. Some parts receive only BBC Midlands or ITV Midlands and it is even impossible to receive BBC Wales. In other parts it is possible to receive only BBC Wales. We are constantly told it will cost far too much to improve reception and yet the people there see their highly valuable resource of water leaving the area without payment.
While I believe in sharing resources in this country so that the Midlands and Liverpool can have cheap water, I also believe it is equally right that in areas such as mine there should be some reciprocal benefit—for example, decent television reception. If that balance is not maintained and if there is no reciprocity, what are people to think? They see this valuable resource leaving the area but not paid for and the Government handing over control of it to the Severn and Trent Authority.
I want to be completely fair on this. When the Clywedog Reservoir Bill was before the House, with the aid of hon. Members on both sides I succeeded in pressing two amendments which provided that the sporting amenities of the Clywedog project was under the control of local people to a great extent. There are entrenched clauses in the Clywedog Reservoir Act.
8.0 p.m.
I have to say that I have found in my dealings with the Clywedog Joint Authority and its Chairman, Alderman Johnstone, a great deal of sensitivity concerning Welsh interests. I have found the authority to be extremely sensitive over the issue of local people benefiting


from the recreational facilities available there and over the erection of Welsh names and such things. Nevertheless, psychologically it is important that the final control of these matters should be in the hands of a Welsh authority.
It is no substitute to say that there will be adequate consultation. The Government will never get over this psychological point. They are in great danger of turning moderate opinion against them. I know people from all parties in Mid-Wales who think that the Government are making a fundamental error. They should be wise and change their course before it is too late. It is not possible to argue, as the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) argued, that common sense and a dispassionate view suggest that all these authorities should ignore national boundaries and so on. Life is not like that, as the Secretary of State well knows. When we put the sewage disposal of Montgomeryshire and the amenity of a considerable part of Mid-Wales under the control of the Severn-Trent Authority we are asking for political resistance.
I do not believe that there should be a Severn-Trent Authority. It will be far too big. I am all for two separate authorities, even under the Government's plans. The Upper Severn is a small part of the Severn-Trent area, unimportant to the Authority save that it is probably the most valuable source of amenity, recreation and water. For Wales the Upper Severn is a vitally important area. Without doubt it is the most politically sensitive area on this issue.
The Government have made such an error here that they will pay dearly for it for years. There has to be a compromise. I accept the need for some joint administration but the final say on the Upper Severn should be entirely in the hands of the Welsh Authority. There is no reason to think that it would be insensitive to representations made to it by the Severn-Trent Authority. There would be no difficulty about adequate consultations. The psychological issue in Wales is who will have the final say.
This measure, if enacted, will govern the relationship between England and Wales on this subject for many years to come. The Government will reap a

harvest from it which is quite unnecessary. They need not take this step. All that they need to do is to ensure that the final say in water development lies with the Welsh authority.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: We have had a vigorous debate in which strong and compelling arguments have been advanced for the inclusion of the Upper Severn basin in the area of jurisdiction of the Welsh authority. Although the Opposition could easily discharge such a task if it were placed upon us it is not for us to show proof that this locality should form part of the Welsh water authority. Rather it is for the Government to show the contrary. It is a heavy onus, which lies clearly upon the Government's shoulders.
This stems from the fact that Wales is a national entity, a phenomenon which this House understands, respects and sympathises with. This is a factor which has been strengthened ever since the establishment of the Welsh Office in 1964. Since then we have had a constitutional status, which we lacked for many centuries. Everyone would agree that since 1964 a clear principle has developed, namely, that the territorial integrity of Wales in relation to any legal or administrative development should be maintained unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.
Those reasons have to be of such strength as to be compelling and irresistible, and must be shown clearly and convincingly to the public. The arguments deployed in favour of inclusion are woefully weak. The main argument to which Ministers have sedulously clung over the past months turn on the question of the development of a river basin as one entity. We agree that there is such an argument. It is a great temptation for Ministers to succumb to this argument but it is for Ministers, like all other faltering mortals, to resist temptation. The physical and technical difficulties are not insurmountable.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) has pointed out, rivers have an understandable propensity for meandering across national boundaries. They are no respecters of such artificial limits. But we are not talking about the Welsh people seizing every drop of water which


would otherwise flow eastward across Offa's Dyke. It is not a question of ownership to the complete exclusion of any other community. It is merely a matter of jurisdiction over planning and control.
In such a situation it should not be said that the fact that a river crosses a national boundary makes it impossible for that boundary to be recognised in this context. Everyone appreciates that there are three or four rivers, including the Tweed and the Esk, and the Liddell which flow through the boundary between England and Scotland. Nevertheless, the Scottish National Water Authority exists. So far as I know, no Minister has said that such an authority should not continue because of this phenomenon.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) and, presumably, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) say that because part of Herefordshire and Cheshire are to be added to the Welsh authority there can be no claim whatever on the basis of the territorial integrity argument. That argument has a certain superficial attraction. If we look deeper we can see that the dominant point of the argument has been completely missed.
The exploitation factor which dominates the water situation has tended to be rather one-sided over the past few decades. Of course, if, standing on the Welsh border at Chester or at Hereford, one were to peer into the mists of history through the eyes of imagination, one could well imagine, many many centuries ago, the occasional drove of cattle or the occasional flock of sheep being taken and driven back across the Welsh border to Offa's Dyke. But for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, such robust exercises are no longer indulged in, and in so far as the exploitation of natural resources is concerned it is the exploitation by powerful interests lying to the eastwards of areas and features in Wales that we have seen in past decades.
It is the very fear of over-exploitation in relation to this area that has run like a refrain through the whole of this debate. I believe I am right in saying that 95 per cent. of the water conserved in Mid-Wales each year finds its way out to England. As we have been told by so

many Opposition Members there is no area where there is so much tension— where there is the possibility and, indeed, the probability of so many embarrassing and agonising conflicts which are bound to present themselves in the future. If this area is excluded from the authority of a Welsh water body, it will be a case not merely of Hamlet without the Prince, but Hamlet without the Castle of Elsinore as well. For it is here that the conflicts, the drama and the rapacity over water in future years will take place. If this area is excluded, a Welsh water authority can never be either an effective or a credible body. Not only will that body itself have been emasculated if the amendment is not carried; the very authority of the Welsh Office will have been greatly imperilled, for no one in Wales will believe that the Welsh Office any longer has the capacity to be an effective, genuine and courageous trustee of the interests of people living in the Principality.
There is no need for me or anyone else to impress upon the House how crucially the development of water and other allied services affects the future of Wales. It has been calculated by the Welsh Council itself that the needs of the Principality are such that if they are to be reasonably met then the developments of the next 30 years, in terms of water exploitation in Wales for native purposes, will have to equal, and more than equal, the devlopments of the past 100 years.
It has also been authoritatively calculated that by 1990, in South Wales— and about half the people of Wales live in that area—the shortfall of industrial and domestic water will be in excess of 175 million gallons per day. That, broadly, is the test, and it is against such a consideration that we have to ask a pertinent question of the Minister of State, who will be replying to the debate. After all is said and done about the amendment—which I assume the Government will use their majority to defeat— and after all the arguments, who will have the final say in terms of the area which is the subject of this debate? Who will have the final say on questions of development, sewage, and recreational facilities?
8.15 p.m.
If an authority within the area of the Severn-Trent body outside Wales was


minded to exploit a valley in Wales, would the final and absolute veto lie with the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for the Environment, or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? That is a question which the Minister of State must answer if the House is to have any confidence at all in the Government's integrity in this matter.
As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) in their very powerful interventions, a great opportunity has been lost—the opportunity of developing this vital resource in a comprehensive way to serve the interests of the Welsh people. This has been impressed in report after report in the last 20 years in Wales. In 1961 the advisory committee on Welsh water resources, in Cmnd. 1331, para. 78, said:
it is important that development of water resources should be conceived as a whole and that the legitimate interests of Wales be safeguarded.
Again in "Wales: The Way Ahead", Cmnd. 3334—whose words were endorsed by the Welsh Council's report on water in 1970—it was advocated
that the water resources of Wales are used and controlled to the widest public benefit, and with the fullest safeguards for Welsh interests.
It is the measure of failure of Ministers opposite that they have failed completely to bring this vital area into such consideration, and that it should be regulated by a Welsh jurisdiction. They have squandered a great opportunity. They have made suspect the position of the Welsh Office. They have chosen to hide behind the skirt of technical arguments. But what they cannot gainsay is the fact that without this area of vital significance a Welsh water authority will be a pitiable eunuch.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I shall endeavour to answer most of the points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) has spoken, it might be reasonable if I first replied to his point and said that I am

grateful for what he has said about Herefordshire. I do not think that Herefordshire has been entirely happy about the proposals for water. I accept that, but I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says in regard to co-operation. That is necessary in setting up this new water authority. I can give to him, and to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) the reassurances about representation which I have already given both on Second Reading and in Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who had recognised that whatever Government had to make a final decision upon this complicated water issue—and it is complicated, hon. Members on both sides of the House admitted that—we have got just about the most sensible solution. I believe that is right. I do not believe that any solution would be perfect, because it is a human solution which we are trying to find.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes). He made one of the funniest speeches I have ever heard in this House, but quite rightly made one or two serious points. He delighted his hon. Friends and my hon. Friends by his references to selling water, the sheikhdoms, and this and that.
If I may, I shall reply in like vein. During the passage of the Bill through the House there has been a lot of discussion with local authorities. On one occasion I was in a local authority area—I shall not say which one—and on going to the lavatory after lunch I found upon the wall a notice which said:
Flush energetically. Every bit of your water is needed in Birmingham.
I shall be careful not to stray any further on that line.

Mr. Denis Howell: Hear, hear. This is a serious matter.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I hope that no one will ask me which local authority that was.

Mr. Denis Howell: Be careful. Birmingham has been good to Wales in providing rates and jobs.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I think that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps I may take up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). He said that


none of the Welsh authorities had benefited from any of the water that had been taken from Wales. It is arguable that in the past water has been sold across the border at too cheap a price, but let us not forget that Birmingham, part of which the hon. Gentleman represents, has made a great difference to the rate burden in certain rural district councils, to give but one example.
We have heard speeches from nearly every Opposition Member, but there is one right hon. Gentleman who has not taken part in the debate. I am sure that he will take no offence if I tell him that if one looks at the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle one finds that it was Sherlock Holmes who said that the significant part about the case was that during the night the dog did not bark. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to say is significant.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred—the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas)—enjoys a joke as much as anybody does, and it is a fact that he was the one person who, during the time he held office, having considered the matter at considerable length, came down on the side of the water basin or hydrological pattern.
I referred to this fact in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech to the Institution of Water Engineers at a meeting in Cardiff on 14th May, 1969 when he said:
One cannot take a sample and say' This is Welsh water or this is English water'. We simply cannot talk about Welsh water and try to deal with the Anglo-Welsh rivers in two parts divided by an administrative boundary. Rivers themselves do not recognise these boundaries. As your President said, 'We are very conscious of Clause 2 of the European Water Charter, which says that the management of water resources should be based on their natural basins rather than on political and administrative boundaries'.

Mr. George Thomas: I always like to hear my speeches quoted. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he produced this threadbare argument in Committee and that, having demolished him up there, and having seen him leave the Committee room crippled by the answer that I gave, I saw no point in repeating the argument tonight? In any case, I was not prepared to set up this monstrosity of a Severn-Trent Authority.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I thought that certain hon. Members had not had the benefit of hearing what had gone on upstairs in Committee. I understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. There is a considerable difference between the water basin theory and the size of the authority. That is a fair point.
There was a certain amount of discussion about selling Wales down the river. Let us have a little less of that. I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider who has best helped Wales over the years with regard to this water problem. My right hon. and learned Friend will go down in history in Wales as the man who saved the Dulas Valley and made it possible for the Senni Valley to be saved, and no one in the House can contradict that. I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West that no valleys were flooded during his time in office, but the fact remains that when we took office in June 1970 Dulas was in danger and the order on Senni was still standing. Nobody can deny that, and it is to the credit of my right hon. and learned Friend that he was able to save Wales in that respect.
The other point that has been made is that Wales will be hurt more than the English parts which are brought into the Welsh National Water Authority. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) asked why I defended England and not Wales. I repeat what I said earlier. This has been a highly difficult problem for me personally but, having decided that the matter must be considered on the water basin principle, however unpopular that might have been in my constituency I had to stand by that principle, and that is what I have done.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: ; How does the hon. Gentleman pursue that policy with regard to the north-east section of Wales, Chester, and so on?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: This is also a problem for Chester. Let it not be said that this is just a problem for Wales, because it is not. It is a problem for parts of Cheshire and of Herefordshire, too.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) referred to the exploitation of Welsh water. Hon. Members who come from Herefordshire and Cheshire see the other side of the coin when their


land is flooded with water coming from Wales. The hon. Gentleman laughs, but there is this other side to this question.
The answer to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is that the final say will lie with the Secretary of State for Wales. I say that assuredly.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It may be that the hon. Gentleman's answer is very much wider than he intended. Will that be the case in respect of the four main functions, or only with regard to water development itself? Is there any distinction between any of those functions, or is that a blanket reply relating to all the jurisdictions?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: That is a complete reply, and I do not go back on one jot of it.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that all the recent reservoirs in Welsh valleys had been built in his constituency. That is not so. There is the Llyn Brianne in Carmarthen, Llysyfran in Pembrokeshire and the proposed Brenig reservoir in Denbighshire, which will come under the Welsh National Water Development Authority.
I thought it right to make that point. The amendment would be directly contrary to the basic principle that a river basin should be managed as a whole. This principle was accepted both by the Central Advisory Water Committee and by the Welsh Council in its report "Water in Wales". In basing administrative areas on natural catchments, even where they cross the Anglo-Welsh border, the Bill follows the Water Resources Act 1963.
Although the Bill provides that the Severn-Trent authority will provide water services in a part of Wales, it will do so in consultation with the Welsh authority, and the responsibility of the Secretary of States for Wales for this area in Wales will not be affected in any way. In the same way, the Welsh authority will provide water services in virtually the whole of Herefordshire and an important part of Cheshire without affecting the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The Government are sure that the proposals in the Bill are consistent with good

water management on a river basin basis and with safeguarding the interests of Wales. Paragraphs 41 and 42 of Schedule 3 ensure that there will be full consultation on any substantial development in the Upper Severn basin and that any land or interest in land in connection with the construction or operation of reservoirs will be held by the Welsh authority.
I come now to the second lot of amendments, which I can describe as Amendment No. 52. It is because the recreational use of water space figures so prominently in Wales that the Bill specifies that the Welsh authority should prepare a plan and I am confident that the Welsh authority will execute the plan in accordance with the provisions of Clause 19(1) in a manner which will be beneficial to all those with interests in the recreational use of water space.
The Government take the view that it is by far the better course in management terms that the authority that is responsible for other water services should also be responsible for carrying out recreational functions. This approach will ensure that all the functions of the water authorities will be collectively performed to the best advantage. Thus, it makes sense that the Welsh authority should be responsible for executing the plan in the area for which it is the responsible water authority and the Severn-Trent authority in the Upper Severn area in Wales.
There is no fear of disagreement about the nature of the recreational plan or its execution in the area of the Upper Severn between the Welsh authority and the Severn-Trent authority being the cause of inaction on the recreational side in this area. It is fully expected that the two authorities will be able in the majority of circumstances to come to an amicable agreement both as to the plan and its implementation. But if disagreement does occur, it can be swiftly resolved by a direction from the Secretary of State for Wales, as is provided for in Clause 19(5).
I hope that having heard these arguments on that sequence of amendments by the Opposition, as on the amendments put down by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the House may see fit to reject the amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 169.

Division No. 113.]
AYES
[8.32 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric


Barren, Guy (Greenwich)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hardy, Peter
Oswald, Thomas


Baxter, William
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bishop, E. S.
Hooson, Emlyn
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Blenklnsop, Arthur
Houghlon, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Soardman, H. (Leigh)
Howell, Denis (Small Health)
Pendry, Tom


Boltomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hucklleld, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prescott,John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Probert, William (Rugby)


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Gorowny (Caerarvon)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roderick Caerwyn E. (Brc n&amp;'R' dnor)


Carmichael, Neil
jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Clark, David (Coine Valley)
Jones Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rowlands, Ted


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-Under-Lyne)


Cunningham, Dr. J.A. (Whitehave)
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Depitford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Davis, Terry (Bromagrove)
Leonard', Dick
Silverman, Jullus


Deaklns, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


de Frellas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel (Rochdale)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Dolg, Peter
Lyon, Alexander W.(York)
Stallard, A. W.


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stell, David


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride Neil
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dunn, James A.
McGuire', Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ellis, Tom
Mackie, John
Thomas.Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)


Ewing, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Fisher,Mrs.Dorls(B'ham,Ladywood)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marsden, F.
Wa kins, David


Ford Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Weitzman, David


GalDern Sir Myer
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Garrett, W.E.
Meacher, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Covenrty, S.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert



Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Grlmond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Adley Robert
Crouch, David
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmld.Mal.-Gen.Jack
Gurden, Harold


Aikins, Humphrey
Dean, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Awdry, Daniel
Deedes, Rt Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Baker' Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


BalnlelRt. Hn. Lord
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Haaelhurst, Alan


Benyon', W.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hawkins, Paul


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


BlffenJohn
Farr, John
Hicks, Robert


Blggs-Davison, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hiley, Joseph


Body, Richard
Fidler, Michael
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Holt, Miss Mary


Bray, Ronald
Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)
Hornby, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hunt, John


Burden, F. A.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Carlisle, Mark
Fowler, Norman
James, David


Chapman Sydney
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Churchill, W. S.
Gardner, Edward
Jopling, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kimball, Marcus


Clegg, Walter
Gower, Raymond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Cooke, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow. C.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cooper, A. E.
Gray, Hamish
Kinsey, J. R.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Green, Alan
Kirk, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Grieve, Percy
Kitson, Timothy


Coslaln, A. P.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Knox, David


Crilchley, Julian
Grylls, Michael
Lamont, Norman




Lane, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langslone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sutcllfle, John


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Loverldge, John
Pounder, Ration
Tebblt, Norman


Luce, R. N.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, John Slradllng (Monmouth)


McCrindle, R. A.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


McLaren, Martin
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Traflord, Dr. Anthony


Maclean, Sir Fltzroy
Raison, Timothy
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Madel, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maglnnls, John E.
Redmond, Robert
Waddinglon, David


Marten, Nell
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rlppon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wells, John (Maldstone)


Mills, Peter (Torrlngton)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Miscampbell, Norman
Host, Peter
Wiggln, Jerry


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wilkinson, John


Moate, Roger
Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Money, Ernle
Simeons, Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sinclair, Sir George
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Monro, Hector
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Montgomery, Fergus
Soref, Harold
Worsley Marcus


Morrison, Charles
Speed, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Mudd, David
Spence, John



Murton, Oscar
Sproat, lain
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stanbrook, fvor
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Normanton, Tom
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 37, leave out from 'order' to end of line 40.
In Committee I disputed the allegation that the words which the amendment omits gave Ministers wholly excessive powers, but, I did not disguise the fact that I did not like the words very much. Some provision for amending the Act will be needed and it is not unusual to have a provision of that sort in a Bill. For example, if an order is duly made under Clause 2 altering the area of a water authority, it may in consequence be necessary to amend the description of the areas of water authorities in Schedule 1.
Having further examined the clause, and as an earnest of my good intentions —my intentions, of course, are always good—I feel that it is right to omit these words, although at a later stage we may have to think of some better words.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

MEMBERS OF WATER AUTHORITIES

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 6, at end insert—
'(a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 11, in page 4, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
No. 82, in Schedule 3, page 45, line 2, leave out' members of a water authority ' and insert' chairman of a water authority and the other members'.
No. 93, in Schedule 4, page 57, line 6, leave out ' chairman and a number of other' and insert ' number of '.
No. 94, in page 57, line 10, at end insert—
'(4) The chairman of a regional land drainage committee shall be appointed by the committee from among their own members'.
No. 101, in page 57, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
No. 102, in page 57, line 41, leave out ' remaining'.

Mr. Griffiths: Those who served in Committee will remember the series of debates about this general principle. I said at that time that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would consult his colleagues about the Government's conclusions. We took seriously the views expressed in Committee and gave great thought to the decision which the Committee reached which was contrary to the expressed policy and wishes of the Government. We in no sense took it


upon ourselves simply to conclude that the Committee was mistaken, and we were right. On the contrary, we gave a great deal of thought to the arguments put forward in Committee and to the Committee's decision.
On reflection, my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that it is right to ask the House to restore the original position whereby the chairmen of the regional water authorities will be appointed by my right hon. Friend. The reasons that led us to that conclusion can be summarised shortly.
The first is that the Bill places upon the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the responsibility to promote jointly a national policy for water and, in addition, the Bill lays upon my right hon. Friends the obligation so to discharge their functions as to secure the effective execution of that policy. It is in the first instance the duty of my right hon. Friend to devise the strategy for water and to secure its effective execution. It must be wrong and illogical to require of the Secretary of State that he should procure policy and its execution and at the same time to say that he should not have the decision on those principal instruments of that policy, namely, the chairmen of the regional water authorities.
8.45 p.m.
Moreover, I should remind the House that the Bill is unlike previous legislation on water in that it confers upon my right hon. and learned Friend considerably wider responsibilities than in previous legislation. For the first time, we are devising a comprehensive water policy whereby the management of the whole hydrological cycle from the raindrop all the way through the river systems to the sewerage works, and from pollution control back again to the water supply and its distribution, and land drainage to the sea will be brought together in the all-purpose policy for which my right hon. and learned Friend now bears responsibility.
Unlike previous legislation under Water Acts, this is a new policy which imposes upon my right hon. and learned Friend new and wider responsibilities. Therefore, in the first instance, if he is to carry the responsibility for that strategy and its execution, it must be right that

he should possess the power of appointment of the main instrument of that policy. The second short point is that those who are chairmen of the regional water authorities will require to be men of demonstrated competence in the running of large affairs.
I recognise that within local authorities there are many men and women who are perfectly capable of managing large undertakings over wide areas. But the larger water authorities will involve investment programmes running into £100 million to £120 million per year. There will be responsibility for a many-faceted operation involving sewerage, and river management involving the deployment of large staffs and technical resources. It is essentially a management job.
I have the greatest admiration for our local authorities, but it cannot be assumed that the process of local authority election will necessarily throw up the 10 most competent managers of water in the country. On the contrary, it may well be that those elections will throw up people who are perfectly capable in many spheres but who are not necessarily the best available people for this onerous task of management.

Mr. W. E. Garratt: For the 10 people who are appointed, will it be a full-time job? Will they be allowed to take outside work or will it be an exclusive contract rather similar, for example, to the chairmanship of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Griffiths: There will be many similarities to the chairmanship of national industries. Of course, regional water authorities by definition are regional bodies whereas the National Coal Board is a national body. The chairmen we have in mind will be expected to give some two or three days a week of their time to this job. It will be the overall responsibility of the chairmen to see that the executive function of the regional water authorities is carried out efficiently.
Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the choice available to my right hon. and learned Friend in procuring the right men to do these important jobs should be as wide as the whole nation. He should be able to select people with business experience, trade


union experience, agricultural experience and water experience. We cannot be certain that such a range of talent and such a breadth of choice will necessarily become available through the processes of local elections.
The third basic reason for the necessity to restore the position which the Bill's originally proposed is that there is a need for continuity. The management of water is, above all, a long-term matter. If it involves the building of a barrage to develop ground water and to seek ways and means of tapping the resources of the Wash, the Dee or the Severn, we must think in terms of long-range planning, investigation and construction. This is a task which should not be put at risk by the fact that our local authority elections take place at frequent intervals. It is surely wrong that the chairman of a regional water authority, charged with long-term planning and executive functions, should be at risk every three years or so because of the political processes of local authorities. It must be right on ground of continuity that my right hon. and learned Friend should have the power to make these appointments.

Mr. Peter Rost: Is my hon. Friend assuming that, as the Bill stands, the chairman of a regional authority would automatically be one of those elected members? Why would not a man appointed by the Minister be likely to be the sort of person who would be unanimously elected by the authority?

Mr. Griffiths: I agree that that would be possible. It is possible that the elected members as well as the appointed members of an authority might choose one of the appointed members as chairman, but there can be no guarantee of that. On this matter it is essential that my right hon. and learned Friend should be charged with the national obligation for strategy and its execution. He must be able to ensure that the best available management talent is available to do the job.

Mr. Charles Simeons: Does my hon. Friend visualise a situation in which able people will not accept nomination as chairmen because by so doing they will feel debarred from taking part

in other aspects of the water cycle? If so, could this not considerably reduce the field of appointments?

Mr. Griffiths: I think I take my hon. Friend's point, if I understand it aright. I believe that we would limit the field of selection if we were to say that only those should come forward who were elected by the local authorities, or who contributed to the work of those authorities, or who were thrown up by the processes of appointment by the Secretary of State within the desiderata laid down.

Mr. Temple: Is it not a fact that those appointed members of the regional water authority other than the chairman will be appointed because of their special knowledge of a certain aspect of work and therefore will be expected to be specialists?

Mr. Griffiths: That is broadly the case. The Bill requires that a number of members shall be appointed after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There will be others with special knowledge of recreation and amenity and others with a particular form of expertise in terms of industry, finance, or labour relations. The chairman's task is above all one of broad strategic management. It is important that we should not limit the field of selection in any way.
There is one final reason why the Government think it right to ask the House to restore the appointed members. The chairman will be responsible, as will the regional water authorities, for extremely wide areas covering not one, but perhaps five, 10, 20, or more local authorities. I accept that many local authority elected members can and do take a broad regional view of what is necessary. Nevertheless, it will frequently happen that within a large regional water authority—for example, the Anglian or the Thames Water Authority—decisions will have to be taken on priorities whereby one area must come second in some decision of basic investment in order that another area may come first.
It is the duty of every elected member from a local authority to do his best to represent his area, to fight his corner, and to put forward his authority's position. He is a mandated member and has a duty to those who elect him.

Mr. Denis Howell: Nonsense.

Mr. Griffiths: With respect, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that an elected local authority member does not have a duty to those who elect him. Of course he does. But it will be necessary, across these wide areas of the re-gional water authorities, for the chairman at times to take a broad view which will possibly involve disappointing some areas by deciding that one area shall have priority over others. This would be a difficult task to discharge for a chairman who came from a local authority within that area.
This is not one of the those open-and-shut arguments. This point was deployed in Committee and the Government have carefully considered it. We have also discussed it with the local authorities. I assure the House that we have reflected upon it a great deal. But, in the interests of the effective management of this most basic of our national resources, I must ask the House to accept the amendment.
We are not by any means alone in our view on this matter. Not surprisingly, many local authorities have taken a contrary view, but I have here a list of those other organisations which are in full support of my right hon. Friend appointing the chairmen of the regional water authorities.
On the side of industry we have the full-hearted support of the CBI, the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Chemical Industries Association and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. I could mention others, but I think they represent a fair sprinkling from industry.
In agriculture there is support for the appointed chairman from the National Farmers Union and the CLA.
In the context of the environment we have the strong formal support of the Countryside Commission and the Council for Environmental Conservation which bring together most of the amenity societies.
Then, not least important, we have the support of those many professional organisations which will have to carry out this policy in detail—namely, the Institution of Public Health Engineers, the Institution of Municipal Engineers, the Association of Waterworks Officers and the Associ-

ation of District Council Surveyors. This is a formidable list of local authority officers, technicians and professionals who will have to carry out this task.
But they are not alone. I should like to quote from one other group. We have the strong support of the National Anglers Council, the National Federation of Anglers and the Salmon and Trout Association. I should like to read part of a letter from the chairman of the Joint Angling Committee which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, assisted in establishing some years ago. According to their chairman, the group of organisations in question—the National Anglers Council, the Federation of Anglers and the Salmon and Trout Association—represent about 2 million people who engage in angling and who are vitally concerned with the Bill. Their chairman wrote to me as follows just a week or so ago:
We have been apprehensive about the wisdom of the Government's proposals to organise water on local government lines, which in any case do not fit industrially or geographically.
9.0 p.m.
But that decision has been taken, and the organisations accept that. Their chairman continues:
The sheet anchor of our hopes has been the provision that the chairman of each water authority would be independent and independently selected. However, an amendment has been made in Standing Committee by which he would become in effect a local authority person, and this could have disastrous effects, particularly in those regions where the domestic needs are concentrated in certain local authority areas and sources of water in others.
Those are the views of the chairman of the Joint Angling Committee, and not necessarily my own. He concludes:
We are therefore very strongly of the opinion that this amendment should be re versed and that the Bill should be restored in this respect to the form in which it was introduced.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I think that most of us have had copies of that letter. What is my hon. Friend's interpretation of the phrase,
The sheet anchor of our hopes"?

Mr. Griffiths: The chairman says that the sheet anchor of their hopes had been the provision that the chairman would be independently selected. I take it that


he means that it was the foundation of their hopes for the Bill. I do not believe that there is any other sense in which it could be said. Whatever the metaphorical virtues of the phrase, the House will be in no doubt that the anglers, the industrialists, professional engineers, technicians, agriculturists and environmentalists are at one in thinking that if my right hon. and learned Friend is to have national responsibility for water strategy, and a duty to ensure its execution, he must have the consequence of that general policy, the right of appointment, subject to his having to answer to the House, of the chairmen of the regional water authorities.

Mr. Denis Howell: I have rarely heard such a monstrous proposal as that in the Minister's speech to reverse the decision that the Committee took on an all-party basis after studying the matter very carefully and objectively. The Minister's arguments contained a total contempt for the process of local government as it is known in this country.
It is disgraceful that a Minister claiming to be responsible for local government, having ministerial responsibility for the democratic process that the whole of our local government system embraces, should advance the contemptible arguments that we heard from the hon. Gentleman tonight.
First, the hon. Gentleman told us that the Secretary of State must have the right to decide who are to be the chairmen of the bodies in question because, to quote him, the right man may not come through the electoral process. Many hon. Members would think many other services to be even more important than water, such as education, where millions are being spent, planning and housing. If it is to be argued that the election process might not throw up the right man, how can the Minister defend the appointment of chairmen of water authorities and not do so in respect of the education committee, the housing committee, the planning committee or any of the other important committees of every major local authority— or of himself? He has been thrown up through the electoral process, and whether we like him or not, we have to put up with him. That is one of the deficiencies of democracy.
What worries me is that throughout the land today there is a growing contempt for politicians which I believe is totally misplaced. I said in Committee—and I make no apology for repeating—that I find that Members of Parliament and certainly councillors serving local authorities who give hours of their time without reward are held up to growing contempt as the result of arguments of the kind that the Under-Secretary has just advanced. Yet their integrity, sense of duty and devotion to the democratic cause is usually much greater than those of the people who criticise them.
The Under-Secretary says that it is dangerous even to think that any regional water authority should be allowed to select its own chairman because in an off-year—probably one of the years when the Conservatives win—we may not get people of the right stature elected. I would not say that even of a year in which the Conservatives won. Usually the quality of people on both sides is equally balanced. Obviously one never gets a council composed entirely of giants. But usually a degree of leadership emerges on both sides which is greatly to the credit of local government. I am very sad that that argument has been used—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In fairness to our good friends in local authorities I ought to make the point that when the chairman of an education committee or a housing committee takes on his task he does so within the area which elects him. That is his specific responsibility within a specific area. The chairman of a regional water authority is responsible for a very much wider area than any one single district which elects members.

Mr. Howell: He is in the same position as the Minister responsible for regional government, the Prime Minister, or anyone else in the Government. To say that is to argue that the greater the area the bigger nonsense the democratic system is. That cannot be the case.
I move now to the argument about security which was one of the hon. Gentleman's other points to support his proposition that a committee cannot be entrusted to select its own chairman. The same argument might be said to apply to the Inner London, Birmingham or


Manchester Education Authority. They have to have regard to the long-term planning of the education service and to the long-term capital investment programme for education. From year to year they may be out of office. That is a risk that we all take in the democratic system. We know that for the first two years of their period in office any Government have to sail along on plans made by their predecessors. But in many aspects of local government the democratic process has to take account of a long-term investment programme and of long-term planning. The only way to safeguard long-term interests is to do away with the eleotoral process altogether and to decide to find the best men and to leave them there irrespective of the pressures of public opinion at any one time.
According to the Under-Secretary this is a management job. However the hon. Gentleman has to be clear in his own mind about the proper function of a committee controlling a democratic service and about the management of that committee. There are two entirely different functions to be performed. One of the great difficulties in some of the other services, like gas and electricity, which we nationalised, is that we did not sufficiently distinguish between the policy head, who is publicly accountable, and the managerial function. The Minister is now bringing the two things together again —the chairman will be the manager as well.
I am old fashioned: I do not think that the chairman should be the manager. He should stand back from day-to-day managerial decisions. We want councillors, and the chairmen and members of nationalised boards, to apply common sense, judgment, knowledge of public opinion and accountability to the everyday expertise which is provided in full by the full-time management. When the Minister either does not make that distinction or blurs it, as he is doing here, he does a disservice to the work we are talking about.
His point about the size of the investment programme is hardly worth 30 seconds reply. The chairman of the GLC, who is democratically elected, is in charge of an investment programme

10 times the size of the one involved here.
One thing which concerns me is that, although these committees may have a slight majority of local authority members, not one of that majority, whether they are local authority members of specialists, will be directly elected by the local authorities. They will all be selected by the Secretary of State from lists submitted to him. In the monstrous Severn-Trent Authority, he may not choose a Birmingham man at all. The water authority that serves Birmingham may be controlled by someone who does not represent the city. There will be no direct right of nomination to any of these bodies.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the Bill gives local authorities the power to appoint someone to a regional water authority who is not a member of the local authority? The Government rejected an amendment to change that, so there is no guarantee of a majority for the local authority anyway.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right. Under the Bill, the devilish situation could arise that a "representative" of a local authority was selected by the Secretary of State to represent the local authority.
When every member of a regional water authority is selected by the Secretary of State, the greater danger is not that they will be unable to have the breadth of ability for the job but that they will be pliable to the Minister, dependent on him for their salary and their future. That is a far greater danger than that the local authorities would send representatives who were not blue-eyed boys of the Secretary of State and his officials.
I turn to what the Under-Secretary said about what he expected his chairmen to be. I never thought I would hear any Minister, never mind a Minister for Local Government, say that about his chairmen. The chairmen of the regional water authorities will be appointed because they will be principally instruments of policy —the Secretary of State's policy. We should not be appointing any chairmen to a body like this because such chairmen will be pliable instruments of the Secretary of State, whoever the Secretary


of State might be. No doubt the Minister would think that they would be even more pliable if the Secretary of State were from a Labour Government. We want independent people as chairmen for the regional water authorities because they control matters of considerable importance.
9.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State gave us a long list of bodies he thought were in favour of this proposition. Not one of them would tolerate an outsider appointing their chairmen, whether it be the CBI, the Chambers of Commerce or the National Anglers Council.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Central Electricity Generating Board?

Mr. Howell: The CEGB certainly was an exception, and I missed it. I will not dwell at length on that except to say that naturally the chairmen of those bodies who have found favour with Ministers from time to time could be expected to be in favour of the system, but I do not think we should take too much notice of that.
I helped to establish the National Anglers Council and I have a great regard for it. I cannot understand why, having elected its own chairmen—I did not have the impertinence when I established it of telling it who its chairmen should be— and having got itself off the ground with commendable efficiency, it should ask to be protected from local authorities. That is an argument which is totally beyond me. The reversal of the decision of the committee, the insistence of the Minister to appoint his chairmen to national and regional bodies, represents a sad day not only for local government but for the democratic process as we know it. I hope that hon. Members will record their complete opposition in the Lobby to the Minister's proposition.

Sir Robin Turton: I did not understand the surprise of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) that when a Minister is responsible for overall planning, whether for health, electricity or gas, he should appoint the chairman and that the chairman should be chosen by him. When the hon. Member was in power I feel sure he would never for one moment

have contemplated that the regional hospital board chairmen should be appointed by the boards. They are all appointed by the Minister.
I have great sympathy with the view that there should be full local authority representation and I did not quite follow my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he said that the authority, in choosing its chairmen, might be in danger of not choosing men of demonstrable capacity. I have great confidence in their judgment, as I have in that of Ministers.
If the proposal goes through as now contained in the Bill, however, the Minister will not be selecting for appointment men with all the general capacity of chairmanship. He will be selecting specialists. Therefore the authority will not be deprived of the chance of selecting such men. That is the difficulty as I see it.
However, there is a second and even greater difficulty. There is a need for great urgency in getting plans under way in the creation of the new water authorities, particularly the regional water authorities. As drafted the Bill will inevitably mean considerable delay because the Minister will be unable to get the chairman selected until the authority has been constituted. That will take time. After all, unlike the point made by the hon. Member for Small Heath, half the appointments will be the appointments of the local authorities under Clause 3(7), and that undoubtedly will take time. When the authorities get together they will not know—and this certainly applies to my area—of the differing qualifications of the men who have been appointed by the local authorities or by the Minister.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that these appointments will be made early so that the chairmen can start work on an overall plan and on making independent plans for the regions. It cannot be wise to keep the Bill as at present drafted, although I am in general critical of the lack of local democratic representation.
There is one other matter which requires consideration. Although the major argument now is about the need for urgency in appointments there will come a time when it is necessary to appoint a new chairman. When that happens it is important that the new


chairman is a man who enjoys the confidence of the regional water authority. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that in making such an appointment he will consult the particular authority. That is the kind of procedure we always used in appointing new chairmen to regional hospital boards when it was necessary to have a man who enjoyed the confidence of the authorities. For these reasons I hope that the Minister will succeed in reversing the decision of the Committee and that the chairman will be appointed by the Minister rather than, after some delay, by the regional water authority.

Mr. Spearing: I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), for a number of reasons. The decision of the Committee was taken on two votes. The first was 11–5 and the second 12–6, the Government being defeated on both occasions. In Committee the discussion on this matter was much longer than the discussion we shall have tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) was right to point to the attitude of the Undersecretary, because the hon. Gentleman used the word "instruments" as though these people were the playthings of the Secretary of State. I think he did it unwittingly, but it reveals something of his attitude of mind and that of the Government.
For the first time the Minister is reaching into the area of executive power. It has been repeatedly pointed out that this will inevitably blunt and detract from his proper rô1e in water affairs, in a judicial, advisory and reserve power sense. We shall muddy up the distinction between the Minister in his judicial and executive capacities. That is yet another bringing together of the two important things we try to separate in a democracy, brought about because of the Government's attitude to the amendment.
The Minister said that we need competent managers of water authorities who can take a broad strategic view, and who have shown competence in large organisations. These were the sort of phrases he used. My hon. Friend was right to say that the chief executive is the person who will be concerned with a great deal of this management. It is he who will

have the proven experience, who has been chosen after exhaustive competitive interview for the management of a large organisation. The chairman has to guide his committee in taking policy decisions. The principles of democracy separate these functions. The Government's proposal makes it difficult for the chief executive and the chairman to reach agreement about their respective rôles.
I raised this subject in Committee, and with his usual adept side-stepping the Minister dodged the point. He has dodged it tonight. I hope that he will acknowledge that whatever merits the Government proposal may have it has this particular demerit.
The fisheries organisation quoted by the Minister referred to the independence of an appointed chairman. I wonder why it wrote that letter, because an appointed chairman is not independent; he is dependent on the patronage of the Minister appointing him. We all know what happens to the chairmen of these organisations—particularly if they are part-time— if they do not do what the Minister wants. The Minister has made it quite clear that executive directions will be issued to chairmen of water authorities to carry out the Minister's policy. The Minister shakes his head, but if he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will see that that was the meaning of his words in the opening of his speech.
In fact, many of these chairmen have been independent. The present chairman of the British Waterways Board springs to mind. He fulfils a great many of the qualifications that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He is also independent. One wonders whether he will be reappointed. Rumour is rife. Indeed, if he is re-appointed, I confess that that will back up the Government's point of view in this matter. I am not expecting an announcement in the reply tonight, but the mere fact that many people have thought that he is not going to be re-appointed shows that there is not the degree of faith in the independence of the chair that the hon. Gentleman thinks there is.
The other consideration is that of the candidates for these jobs. I do not believe that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State believes that he or his successors will be competent to


choose these people. There will be recommendations and there will be lists. Therefore, the power of patronage and selection will be extended to people who are not publicly accountable. I do not attack people who cannot speak for themselves, but the opinion exists in the water world today that many provisions in the Bill have been put forward by people who cannot be questioned directly and want to have power for themselves. This may be wrong, but it is undeniable that the power of patronage in the appointment of these chairmen will not be entirely in the hands of the Ministers but partly in the hands of those who advise them.
Finally, it is quite clear that the Government have in mind the extension of what people call the executive style chairmen. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the chairmen of the health committee and the hospital management committee. All too frequently the chairmen wish to pursue one executive course and the committee members another. Because of that, the committee members may lose interest. In a vast organisation, with many subcommittees, a chairman who wishes to exercise an executive rôle, and not be a chairman in the sense which most of us understand it, will perhaps reduce the sense of concern, and democracy, as we understand it, will be at a distance.
Therefore, I conclude that the Government, in reversing the decision of the committee on this matter, are displaying a typically hierarchical attitude to a field of endeavour which does not need to have the sort of centralised power which quite clearly the Government have in mind. They have it in mind because they want to appoint these people from Whitehall and not have them appointed by the elected representatives of the people who use the water concern.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am sorry that the Government have felt that they had to introduce the question of the appointment of chairman to the regional water authorities. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said and noted the emphasis he has placed on the type of person whom the Government propose should be appointed. I find myself in considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for

Acton (Mr. Spearing) has just said about the job of a chairman in a non executive capacity. I took a note of the phrase that my hon. Friend used, namely, that they would require to find the 10 most competent managers of water. I do not see that as the task of a chairman. I think that my hon. Friend and those whose advice he has sought and discussed this problem with have been misled to some degree by the emphasis they placed on the elected representative content of the regional water authorities. After all. this is a matter which we are coming to in an amendment in a moment or two. What we see there is the proportion of members from local government and those who are appointed to represent various interests to make up the total membership of the authorities.
9.30 p.m.
When one thinks in terms of the numbers involved—for example, the Thames Regional Water Authority has a membership of 52 and a number of other authorities have memberships of more than 30— one realises that if they are to have a membership that is worth appointing at all, among authorities of that size there will be men and women who will be able and competent to chair them. I very much regret the emphasis which my hon. Friend has put on the local authority member content, as though that were the reason why the chairmen should not be elected. I have sufficient confidence in the judgment of both elected and appointed members to believe that they will appoint the best member of the authority to the job of chairman. I should be very disappointed if I thought otherwise.
Those who contest the view that the chairmen should be elected say that it will be a political election, and that it will change as the political complexion of local government changes. That ignores the subtantial content of the membership of the authorities appointed by the Minister and not coming from local government.

Mr. Rost: I am in sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument, as I was in Committee. Does he agree that the Minister should be able to make a recommendation for the chairman of an authority, rather than make the appointment? Would that be acceptable?

Mr. Jones: I should not want that requirement to be written into the Bill, but I am sure that Ministers have been known to make representations and let their views be known to members. That is a human function, which one would be wrong to try to deny. I think that recommendations are made, can be made and should be made, but that should not be enshrined in an Act.
I have looked at some of the remarks made in Committee by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State. I find that my right hon. Friend was using the argument that we are to have elected chairmen for regional water authorities as part of his case to deny subsequent amendments. When we were discussing the question of appointments to the National Water Council and the constitution of the council my right hon. Friend said:
I should have thought that whatever merits the amendment had before the Committee decided that the chairmen of the RWAs, which form part of the NWC, should be elected by the RWAs. on which the local authorities are in the majority, they have now gone."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 27th March 1973, c. 531.]
That is using the argument that as the chairmen of the regional water authorities are to be elected, that will be reflected in the composition of the National Water Council.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary spoke of the possibility that many of the chairmen of regional water authorities
may well come from local government."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 10th April 1973, c. 936.]
Is that an undertaking which my hon. Friend is prepared to give now—that if we are to have appointed chairmen to some extent they should come from the members appointed to the regional waters authorities by the county councils?
Here again, it bedevils the whole proposition to think in terms of the elected members of the regional water authority and appointed members of that body as separate parts and separate groups of people. To do so does great damage to the whole concept of the working together of elected and specialist appointed representaives. I agree with what was said about the aspects of local government representation which my hon. Friend seems to condemn.
Four amendments in my name are grouped with Amendment No. 8 and I should like to speak very briefly to those. They deal with Schedule 4, with regard to the appointment of chairmen of regional water authorities, and the link there is the responsibility that will lie with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to appoint the chairmen of regional land drainage committees. Whatever the merits of the appointment of chairmen of regional water authorities by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I do not see how they can apply to the appointment of chairmen of regional land drainage committees. Regional land drainage committees will be committees of the regional water authorities, which will be required to delegate certain responsibilities to their land drainage committees and to give them general directions. They are creatures of the regional water authorities, but a separate Ministry is to have responsibility for the appointment of their chairmen. A number of the members of the regional land drainage committees will be appointed by the Minister.
Committees of this kind should be empowered to appoint their own chairmen from among their membership. That is really the purpose of the argument with regard to my amendments and also the general question.

Mr. Winterton: My intervention in this part of the debate will be very brief. I find myself almost entirely in sympathy with the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) and agreeing to a degree with the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). I believe that the Government are very mistaken in trying to reverse what was a very reasoned and well-argued decision at the Committee stage of the Bill. From my limited experience of local government I believe that in doing this the Government will be cutting totally across the concept and potential of the local government reorganisation which they have spent such a long time in promoting, and promoting enthusiastically.
The chairmen and leaders of the new local government areas, whether metropolitan, non-metropolitan, district or whatever, will be representing and deal-


ing with areas far bigger than their normal parochial patches. If my right hon. Friend is indicating to the House that he does not believe that local government can elect from within its own ranks people who are capable of dealing satisfactorily with the affairs of a regional water authority, all I can say is that there is very little future for local government under the reorganisation.
I hope that even at this stage the Government will reconsider their position and contemplate withdrawing this amendment. Local government can put forward able people fully capable of dealing with the massive problems that will face the regional water authorities. I believe that local government should be enabled to do this by producing from within the regional water authorities the chairmen to guide that very important organisation.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I find it difficult to understand the surprise and indignation expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) at the Government's stated intention to reverse the decision taken in Committee. It is precisely because the House should be allowed second thoughts about its provisions that a Bill has to go through more than one stage.
Equally, I cannot see that the Government's intention to appoint the chairmen of the regional water authorities is an insult, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, implied to the quality of people in local government. It is not, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. If a regional water authority were coterminous with the boundaries of a regional authority which had responsibilities for other things, or were coterminous with the boundaries of one local authority, it would be logical for it to have a chairman elected from the authority itself. But there are no regional water authorities in a general sense and the local authorities are not coterminous with the regional water authorities.
The argument over who is to appoint the chairmen of the regional water authorities originated simply with the Government's decision to concede a major increase to local authorities in their pro-

portion of membership of regional water authorities. If the Government had stuck to their original guns, if they had upheld, as I said on Second Reading they should, their original intention to establish small executive regional water boards similar to boards of companies, if they had strengthened the proposed consumer councils by increasing their powers and their local authority representation, if they had provided for an executive board subject to powers of approval and political pressure from the consumer councils, not only would they have established a potentially more efficient water organisation but we would not now be having the argument over the powers of appointment of the chairmen of the regional water authorities.

Mr. William Baxter: Who would have appointed the chairmen of the executive suggested by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Morrison: If there had been a small executive board, it would have been possible either for the board as a group of, as it were, company directors to select the chairman, or for the Government to appoint the chairman. The fact is that the animal is now changed. It is no longer a board but an authority. In the circumstances, it is right for the Government to appoint a chairman.
We now have these regional water authorities and what has happened is water under the bridge. They are a far cry from executive boards and the question has therefore arisen about who should appoint the chairmen. I have no doubt that, in the circumstances which now exist, but which should not have arisen, it is right to opt for the appointment of the chairmen by the Government.
It is essential that the chairman of a regional water authority should have considerable managerial experience. It is even more essential that that should be so because the regional water authority is an authority and not a board. My guess is that in a larger authority the tendency will be for the full-time officers to take increasing control, and therefore it is all the more important that there should be the check upon them of a highly qualified chairman. It is preferable if he has experience in water management. It is essential, if he is to hold the confidence of all the members


of the authority, that he should not be representative of any one sectional interest.

9.45 p.m.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: A new idea seems to have crept in than the managerial experience gained by a person who manages a factory producing, say, peas or turkeys necessarily enables that person to run a water authority. How does big business management enable a person to control people and to manage an aspect of Government totally divorced from the confines of industry?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend raises a matter that I am about to come to. The chairman of a regional authority would be properly subject to the political pressure of the decisions of the members of the water authority. He is not a dictator, he is only a chairman. But the chair should not become a political football, as it would if the chairman were to change as often as political power changed. Therefore, I support the amendment and I hope that the House will do likewise.

Mr. Temple: I realise that the House must come to a decision on this matter relatively quickly, but I should like to contribute two small points.
The first is on the composition of the regional water authority. The Government, I think wrongly, have put in local authority majorities. I am vice-president of two local authority associations, and I have regularly spoken to three local authority associations. Once the control of finance was removed from local authorities, I could not see the reason for the local authority majorities on the regional water authorities. As there is now a majority of local authority members on the regional water authorities, I do not believe it right that they should elect a chairman from amongst themselves.
I will give two reasons. In the old days of the river authorities all the finance came from precepting and, naturally, the members of the river authorities were conscious of where the money came from, because it came from their own local authorities. That is not now the case, and now that the finance of the regional water authorities is entirely divorced from local

authorities, this is the time to make a change in the chairmanship.
Secondly, I have a high regard for local authority circles and I commend them in the same way as did my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones), because I have worked in them for many years. But regional water authorities will have representatives from boroughs and county districts, from north, south, east and west of the region and from industry. The tendency will be for the members to say that it is a borough man's turn or a county man's turn to be chairman. They will tend to say, "We have had local authority representatives as chairman for so long, we will now have an industrial man." That is how it will go.
But that is entirely wrong, because the whole strategy of water policy will be governed by the National Water Council. Who will make up the National Water Council? The chairmen of the regional water authorities. Unless there is reasonable continuity on the National Water Council—and I cannot conceive of that coming about on the basis of regional water authority chairmen changing continually—we shall not get the consistent strategy which is so important in our national water policy.
For these reasons I support the Government in their desire to retain the appointment of the chairmen.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This has been a useful and animated debate, as were our debates on this subject in Committee.
In replying briefly, I will start with the valuable contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). I give him the complete assurance that we are anxious to get the chairmen into post as soon as the House has given us the necessary authority so to do. The reorganisation of the water services is a massive and detailed job. There is the task of advertising for and recruiting chief executives. There are the many tasks of the provisional management units, of sewerage and river management and water supply. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we should get the chairmen into post as quickly as we can. That would not be possible if we had to wait until the new local authorities come into


existence next April. Having made their choices for the regional water authorities, they would then have to go through the difficult process of deciding which of their members should become chairmen. On the ground of the need to get chairmen into post, I think that my right hon. Friend's point was entirely right.
I should like to give my right hon. Friend a further assurance. He made the reasonable suggestion, which was picked up in a sense by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), that when we come to the second-generation chairmen—that is to say, those who will follow the first chairmen put into posts—it would be right for my right hon. and learned Friend to take soundings of the water authorities to ensure that those who he had in mind for future appointments should command the confidence of the boards and, in particular, the confidence of their local authorities.
I have consulted my right hon. and learned Friend and I can give the assurance that that would be his intention.

Mr. Denis Howell: You cannot.

Mr. Griffiths: I can give the assurance that that will be the Secretary of State's intention.

Mr. Howell: He will not be there. You cannot bind his successor.

Mr. Griffiths: I can give the assurance that the Secretary of State intends to take soundings of the regional water authority boards when he comes to consider future appointments of chairmen after the first group have taken up their posts. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) may not be aware that the office of Secretary of State continues. I am making this suggestion on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend who now holds that office.

Mr. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend explain why it would not be possible, if the decision were made today that chairmen could be appointed by the local authorities represented on the regional water authorities, to appoint chairmen almost immediately? In fact, all of them will shortly be in office.

Mr. Griffiths: The brief answer to my hon. Friend is that a decision will have

to be reached on this matter shortly. I shall now come to the other matters that were raised.

Mr. Baxter: Mr. Baxter rose—

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply to hon. Members who have contributed. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), who served with distinction in Committee, was worried that the appointment of a chairman by my right hon. and learned Friend would somehow be less than independent. He talked about patronage and similar matters. That does not stand up. He mentioned the chairman of the British Waterways Board. In fact, that chairman is appointed by the Secretary of State and is a fully independent person.
It is within the knowledge of hon. Members that successive Governments have appointed chairmen of new town corporations. They have been entirely independent of Government policy. Each chairman of the area electricity boards is an appointee. He is, nonetheless, independent. The chairmen of the regional economic planning councils are appointees. They are, nonetheless, independent.
It is a long-established practice whereby successive Secretaries of State have appointed persons of competence to various tasks throughout the country. Never has any question been raised about the propriety of such appointments or of the independence of those so placed in office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) was right when he said that the regional water authorities are not coterminous with particular local authority areas. That is the whole difference.
The hon. Member for Acton made much of local authority managers of education authorities and housing departments and indeed of the situation in the Greater London Council. I pay my tribute to their great competence in the high offices which they hold, but the essential difference is that they are executing their offices in the areas in which they hold responsibility as elected members. In the regional water authorities there will be a very much wider responsibility which crosses many local authority boundaries and which is inbuilt in respect of hydro-logical considerations and not simply of a political and administrative consideration.
I should like to deal with the amendments related to agriculture. The concept of a statutory land drainage committee subordinate to the water authority but with special responsibility calls for adequate liaison between two groups. The fact that the regional land drainage committee chairman should be one of the Minister's appointees to the water authority seems to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be the best way of ensuring that this happens. The widest consultations have taken place and the officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well as those concerned in the land drainage organisations have been greatly concerned to get land drainage matters right.
I give the assurance that consultations have taken place with the NFU, the CLA, the Association of River Authorities and the Association of Drainage Authorities. All were unanimous that the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food should retain his responsibilities for land drainage and should appoint the chairmen, who will be members of the regional water authorities. I hope that the House will accept what I have said and will support the Government.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Is my hon. Friend prepared to comment on the fact that some chairmen of regional water authorities will be local authority representatives?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon and learned Friend intends to select the best men for the job. There will be some areas of the country where the industrial interest in water is of significance and it may be right for him to look to people with industrial experience. That may be the case in the North-West or in the Severn-Trent. There may be other areas in which particular local government re-ponsibilities are of special importance and others in which agriculture may be of the greatest significance. My right hon and learned Friend in considering possible candidates will look to local government and I know that he will be glad if local authorities suggest to him people who may be able to fill these jobs. There is no bar and the Secretary of State will go out of his way to give full consideration to any possible local authority candidates, elected or otherwise, who may come forward to take on these taks.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Why does not my hon. Friend leave the matter to the local authorities? Surely they must know better than the gentlemen in Whitehall. If what my hon. Friend says is true—and I think it is true—should not the local authorities, the people on the spot, be better able to appoint these people?

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 139.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Allison, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Atkins, Humphrey
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Awdry, Daniel
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Haselhurst, Alan


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hawkins, Paul


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Emery, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Balnlel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Farr, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Benyon, W.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hiley, Joseph


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fidler, Michael
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Biffen, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Holt, Miss Mary


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hordern, Peter


Body, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, Richard


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bray, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
James, David


Brawis, John
Fowler, Norman
Jopling, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fox, Marcus
Kimball, Marcus


Burden, F. A.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'ftord &amp; Stone)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Carlisle, Mark
Gardner, Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Chapman, Sydney
Gibson-Watt, David
Kinsey, J. R.


Churchill, W. S.
Gower, Raymond
Kirk, Peter


Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kitson, Timothy


Cooke, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Knox, David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Green, Alan
Lamont, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
Grieve, Percy
Le Merchant, Spencer


Critchley, Julian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Crouch, David
Grylls, Michael
Longden, Sir Gilbert


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld.MaJ.-Gen.Jaek
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Loveridge, John


Dean, Paul
Gurden, Harold
Luce, R. N.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacArthur, Ian




McCrindle, R. A.
Parkinson, Cecil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


McLaren, Martin
Pounder, Ratton
Sutcliffe, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Madel, David
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Tebbit, Norman


Maginnis, John E.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Temple, John M.


Marten, Nell
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mather, Carol
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Trallord, Dr. Anthony


Mawby, Ray
Redmond, Robert
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Kn. Sir Derek


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Weatherill, Bernard


Money, Ernie
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shersby Michael
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Monro, Hector
Simeons, Charles
Wiggin, Jerry


Montgomery, Fergus
Sinclair, Sir George
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Morrison, Charles
skeet, T. H. H.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Murton, Oscar
Soref, Harold 
Woodnutt Mark


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Speed, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Spence, John



Normanton, Tom
Sproat, lain
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Mr. Kenneth Clarike




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William (G'gow. Maryhill)
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hardy, Peter
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
 Harper, Joseph
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Baxter, William
Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooson, Emlyn
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Huckfield, Leslie
Prescott, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Ronald(Shoredltch &amp; F'bury)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n &amp;R'dnor)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Clark, David (Coine Valley)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rowlands, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Concannon, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Leonard, Dick
Sillars, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Deakins, Eric
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steel, David


Dormand, J. D.
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McGuire, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mackenzie, Gregor
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackle, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)


Dunnett, Jack
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, Tom
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Ewing, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Faulds, Andrew
Marquand, David
Watkins, David


Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Marsden, F.
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitehead, Phillip


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Molloy, William
Winterton, Nicholas


Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. James A. Dunn, and


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Water Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, page 4, line 15, leave out from 'framed' to end of line 17 and insert
'that two-thirds of the membership should be from those appointed by local authorities and one-third appointed by the Secretary of State and the Minister between them'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss the following amendments:
No. 14, in page 5, line 27, leave out ' or ' and insert
'shall ensure that two-thirds of the members of the Authority are representatives of local authorities and'.
No. 99, in Schedule 4, page 57, line 35, leave out 'one' and insert 'at least three '.
No. 100, in page 57, line 37, at end insert
'and so that the total number of members appointed by the constituent councils of counties is equal to the total number appointed by the constituent councils of districts'.
No. 107, in page 60, line 12, leave out 'one', and insert 'at least two'.
No. 108, in page 60, line 13, at end insert
'and the total number of members appointed by the constituent councils of counties shall be equal to the total number of members appointed by the constituent councils of districts'.

Mr. Oakes: The amendment is concerned with local government representation on the regional water authorities. Local government will consider itself and democracy singularly defeated by the last vote. If the Government will accept this amendment at least it will in some small way redress the balance and undo the damage which undoubtedly has been done to the confidence of local government by the last vote.
There has been a long debate—one might say almost a quarrel—between every local authority association and the Government about representation of local authorities in respect of two functions for which hitherto they were the responsible authorities—water mainly and sewerage wholly. Those responsibilities are being taken away from them by this Bill. A compromise was reached between the Department of the Environment and the

local authorities whereby a narrow and bare majority on the various regional water authorities was given to local government representatives in respect of functions where previously they had been masters. Then the Committee gave some further power to these regional bodies by allowing them to appoint their own chairmen. Alas, that has now gone as a result of the last vote.
This amendment seeks to retain a much greater degree of local government control over the regional water authorities by adopting the formula that two-thirds of the members of the authorities shall be local government representatives with one-third being appointed by the Government. The reason for that is clear. The Opposition still regard the functions of the regional water authorities basically as local government functions. The authorities are not the puppets and arms of the Secretary of State.
That is the intention behind the amendment. It may be argued by the Minister that if we were to increase the proportion of local authority representatives to two-thirds it would upset the formula whereby local authorities elect, in the case of metropolitan counties, two representatives with two from the districts and, in the case of non-metropolitan counties, one representative and one from the district for the whole county area. But that need be no impediment. The Government will remember that in Committee we suggested doubling the representation from the metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties and, if this amendment were accepted, in another place the Government could easily double that representation to secure adequate representation for local authorities on these boards.
The present formula means that a county as great as Greater Manchester has two representatives on the North Western Board. It means that a county such as Cheshire has one representative. That is the formula at the moment. We seek by this amendment to make it clear that regional water authorities basically are local government bodies. We want to bring the expertise from local authorities which at present are mainly in charge of water and which are wholly in charge of sewerage functions, so that they may continue to render the same services.
In view of the decision taken on the previous amendment, I ask the Government to adopt the present amendment and to take the necessary steps in another place to alter the formula so that the bodies will not become too unwieldy but to secure at least that local authorities retain the functions of water and sewerage even though the structure of those functions is rearranged by the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I apologise for entering this debate, since I was not a member of the Committee and I have not studied in detail the Committee reports, but I want to make one plea to my hon. Friends on behalf of my constituents and their representation on the Thames Regional Water Authority.
I have written to my hon. Friend to ask that he should ensure that my constituents have some say on the water authority that will control their water supplies in future. Receiving no reply, I put down Amendment No. 188 which you, in your wisdom, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have not selected because it was starred. It was starred because I was hoping for a reply from the Government to my letter.
In the Cotswolds, some 58,000 people, most of whom, although not all, are my constituents, will have their water supplied by the Thames Water Authority but, under the Bill, will have no right of representation upon that authority. They represent only 14 per cent. of the population of the new county of Gloucester, whereas they would need to be 16⅔ per cent. before they were entitled to representation under the clause. If this is a local authority service, we cannot exclude 58,000 people from representation.
The bulk of the head waters of the Thames rise in the Cotswolds and there is great interest there in river management, drainage, and the provision of the water supplies which feed many other areas of the Thames basin further down the valley. The riparian interests will need representation from among my constituents, just as the consumers will. It is wrong that there will be no-one to whom my constituents will be able to make representations or complaints if

their water supplies are not adequate, if they are unhappy about charges for water or if insufficient attention is paid to the cleanliness and maintenance of the rivers in my constituency, which are many and which are not only important but very beautiful.
So I ask my hon. Friend to tell me that we shall have a representative on the Thames Water Authority. There are so many members of that authority that there is no reason why so important an area as the Cotswolds, where all the head waters of the Thames rise, should not be represented. I wish that my hon. Friend had indicated his attitude to me in writing before the debate, because it would have avoided the need for me to raise the matter in public. But I assure him that it is essential that, if this is to be a representative matter at all, such a large group of my constituents should not be neglected.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I support the amendment, because I was very dissatisfied with the replies that we had earlier this evening from the Under-Secretary about the responsibility for the conduct of drainage and sewerage operations. He gave a rather stupid answer when he said that one could not divide functions of drainage and sewerage from other functions because there would be difficulties in drawing the boundary line about who had to decide on things such as acidity, and that consequently there would be difficulty in defining the lines of conduct to determine who was responsible for the quality of water.
That was rather a nonsensical answer when we were talking about who had to carry out those functions. It is typical of the Civil Service-type of reply that many of us have received when we have taken up queries on the Bill.
The Under-Secretary also said that if we were to divide drainage and sewerage from the other functions, we would have no incentive or enthusiasm for conservation and economy of water supplies. Again I considered that to be the kind of answer that the Minister must have been given by his advisors. Even he could not have thought up a nonsensical answer like that for himself.
It was because I was dissatisfied with the replies that the Minister gave earlier


on the conduct of these functions that I am particularly keen to support the amendment. Since we cannot have district councils and local authorities being responsible for drainage and sewerage, or so the Minister says, perhaps the best we can push for is to ensure that these local authorities will at least have some representation on the regional water authorities.
The Under-Secretary told me in a letter on March 23rd that some of these functions would be put in the hands of district councils on an agency basis. I do not know what that means. I hope it means that they will be able to retain some control over drainage and sewerage in their area. It seems to me that, irrespective of the delegation of agency arrangements to these district councils, they will still not have control over these matters in the way that they should.
I have had representations on this from Mr. Taylor, the conscientious engineer and surveyor of the Bedworth Urban District Council, and I am sure that his sentiments are echoed by engineers and surveyors throughout the country. I am sure that the problems that he outlined to me will not be rectified by the totally inadequate representation that local authorities will have on regional water authorities.
One of my hon. Friends says that Greater Manchester will have two people on the regional water authority dealing with that part of the country. If Greater Manchester is to have two, God knows what Nuneaton and Bedworth will have on the Severn-Trent Regional Water Authority. I cannot see that the 110,000 people I represent will have any direct representation. At least my constituents have some representation on, or they can do something about, the Trent River Authority. They have a means of access, even if it is only by my clobbering the authority. But if the Trent and the Severn authorities are to be joined together, as they are, I am not sure how many representatives the new gerrymandered Warwickshire County Council will have on the new Severn-Trent authority.
However, I am not content to accept the representation that the new Warwickshire County Council will have on that authority for my constituents. I put it

to the Under-Secretary that many of my constituents in combining the former municipal borough of Nuneaton and the former urban district of Bedworth will not even accept the joint name that the Secretary of State has given them. How on earth he expects them to accept the totally inadequate representation they will be given on the new regional water authority I do not know. My hon. Friend has made a good point about the need to increase local authority representatives on the RWAs because now, thanks to the Under-Secretary, the authorities will not even be able to appoint their own chairmen. Surely the Minister can make some concession to rectify the deficiencies imposed by his amendments. One such concession would be in accepting the main force of the amendment.

Mr. Peter Trew: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I want to raise the question of representation on the Thames Water Authority. A large part of North-West Kent, most of which lies in my constituency, has been included in the London-based Thames Water Authority with the result that the 150,000 people living in that area will have no elected representation on the authority.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee but my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) ably moved an amendment seeking to restore to the Southern Water Authority the part of North-West Kent concerned. While I am sorry that the Government were not able to accept that amendment I am glad that they undertook to look into the possibility of giving the Southern Water Authority the land drainage function for the area. Even if that is done there is still the problem of representation in respect of water supply and sewage disposal. It is not always easy to say whether a problem falls into the land drainage or the water supply category.
At the moment, for instance, we have an acute local problem in that the Dartford and District Angling and Preservation Society, whose members number 3,000, sees its valuable fishing stocks imperilled by the lack of water in the lakes adjoining the River Darent. The


solution to that problem lies partly with land drainage and partly with water supply. If the problem arose after reorganisation there would be a difficulty with representation.
There are many other matters which my constituents might wish to take up but on which they would be prejudiced by the lack of representation on the Thames Water Authority. I hope my hon. Friend will look seriously into the problems of areas such as my constituency, which, because the boundaries of regional water authorities do not coincide with county boundaries, find themselves without elected representation.

Mr. James Allason: In case my hon. Friend feels inclined to accept this amendment I would ask him to consider the situation which will arise and which will mean that there must either be a reduction in the number of appointed members or such an increase in members that the regional water authorities would be almost unmanageable. We have already heard in Committee proposals for the number of elected and nominated members. The number nominated by the Minister of Agriculture would be two. This could be disastrous.
While I accept that in smaller authorities two might be all that could be spared, I submit that where there are larger regional water authorities there is a good case for at least three members being nominated by the Minister of Agriculture so that not only agriculture but land drainage and, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. True), fisheries, could be represented. If the Minister feels inclined to accept an expansion in the size of these authorities I hope that he will not forget the nominated members.

Mr. George Wallace: My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) mentioned sewage. I cannot understand why sewage has to be mixed up with pure water in this Bill. The Government should think again and leave sewage to those who are capable of dealing with it. The local authorities already handling sewage disposal should be left to it.
I have received strong representations from the City of Norwich. I remind the

Minister that the people of East Anglia are extremely concerned about this issue and the way in which the Government have dealt with the whole Bill. While I acknowledge that this question of representation is mainly concerned with sewage and water supply, I contend that sewage should be taken away from water. The two should be kept separate.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Hands off sewage!

10.30 p.m.

Dr. Suttaford: The debate raises questions almost way beyond the amendment, and we cannot go into those.
We are talking about local water being provided for local people to use, whether for sewerage, recreation or drinking, and the control over this water is being taken from the locality and put into the hands of people who are answerable to nobody. This was well illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) who has already started to talk about his vested interest. If we get away from democracy we degenerate to vested interests fighting each other.

Mr. Simeons: My hon. Friend talked about local water for local people. He has been drinking water from Luton sewage works, and I hope that he has enjoyed it.

Dr. Sruttaford: I do my best not to drink water in London.
To come back to the question of vested interests, we also saw this so clearly portrayed by the last speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he started to say that in an industrial area an industrialist may be in charge, in an agricultural area an agriculturist may be in charge, and it appears as if we are going to look at each area to find the strongest vested interest and give it overall charge. That cannot be right.
We must see that the local interest is protected and that small numbers of anglers or boating people can have a say through their representatives. If we take local government and local democracy away from people, they will have no say. No one will know where the nominated people come from, hear when they speak, or notice when they are replaced. It will be another form of government by Whitehall.

Mr. Rowlands: If hon. Members are concerned about the provisions in the Bill dealing with the constitution of the English water authorities, I am sure that they would be appalled if they were to realise the lack of provision for the Welsh Water Authority. English authorities have a broad idea of what the representation will be, but there is no provision in the Bill for outlining the constitution of the Welsh Water Authority. This will not be done by legislative provision or discussion but by an order of the Secretary of State for Wales, and it will be unamendable.
The only reason given for this unfair and discriminatory means of dealing with the constitution of the Welsh Water Authority is that the Secretary of State for Wales is waiting for the Kilbrandon-Crowther Commission to report. That commission is considering England as well as Wales, and if we have to wait for it to report before we can establish a Welsh water authority, why is it that the English authorities are not expected to wait?
The Minister of State has declined to state the representation on the Welsh Water Authority. English authorities have an idea of the kind of representation that local authorities will have. In Wales we have none. All that we have had is one brief verbal assurance from the Minister of State that, generally speaking, in Wales the representation will be broadly similar to that in England.
The document that was passed round in Committee to help hon. Members showed that in the representation on English water authorities local authority majorities vary from one to four. I want to know whether the Welsh Water Authority will have a local authority representation of one, two, three or four. What representation will county councils and district councils have in Wales? We have some idea of what the representation on and constitution of the English authorities will be. We have no such idea of the situation in Wales.
There is no provision in the Bill dealing with the constitution of the Welsh Water Authority, and no guidelines for it. Everything will be done by an autocratic decision of the Secretary of State. It will be done by means of an order which will be unamendable, and this

procedure is unacceptable to the Welsh people.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall, we had extensive debates about this matter. The dilemma before all of us was that on the one hand we wanted relatively compact executive bodies to take on these important functions but at the same time we wanted to include on them as wide a representation from local authorities and the many other interests concerned as was practicable.
In the first instance, our professional advisers and the Central Advisory Water Committee felt that it would be right to have largely executive authorities. Industry made it clear that it would oppose an elected majority. The professions for the most part did not want a local government majority. The Association of River Authorities was opposed to an elected local government majority. On the other hand, many hon. Members and the local authority associations naturally proposed that there should be substantial local government majorities.
At the end of the day, we had to seek some form of balance between the democratic, elected element and the compelling need to have executive people with wide experience in the many specialised aspects relevant to water. Therefore, we produced a formula which in the first instance was that all of those county authorities with a quarter of their population within a particular regional water authority should have a member. As a result of consultations, we decided that that proportion was not enough, and we reduced it to one-sixth, thereby bringing more county members into each authority, but, of course, inevitably thereby increasing the size of each regional water authority, so that some authorities are very large indeed—too large, many professionals think, for managerial efficiency.
In the end, we have had to strike some form of balance. We have worked on the basis of the formula discussed in detail in Committee. We decided that it would not be right to make the local authority majority depend solely on population, for if that were the case the great conurbations of Manchester and Liverpool, for example, would be strongly represented while the Lake District would not get on at all.
We could not base it purely on population. We could not base it just on rateable value because that would mean, for example, that the great City of Birmingham would swamp the authority while many rural areas in the Severn-Trent area would not get on at all. Nor could we base it on volume of water used, the formula which industry might have preferred, because industry, as the great user of water, would have been the dominating element. Thus, the balance begins and ends with a local authority majority.
I take the point that every community, every constituency, every town wants to be on the authority. Equally, I take the point—for I have received all the letters —that every conceivable group of fishermen, environmentalists, ramblers, and many minority groups, would also like to be on the authority. But there has to be some limit to the size of these organisations if they are to be effective, compact executive bodies. I believe that our formula strikes a proper balance between the compelling needs of management and efficiency and the equally compelling demand for there to be an elected majority.

I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that there may be a case in some of the larger regional water authorities in which the Minister of Agriculture may wish to have somewhat more agricultural and fisheries members, and I will convey the point to my right hon. Friend. I also take the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), to whom I apologise for the fact that he has not received a reply to his letter and assure him that he will have one at once.

The House accept that all hon. Members are doing their proper duty in urging that their own communities should be represented, but in the end there must be a balance between the elected majority and others representing more specialised interests which also require to be on the authorities. I believe that we have struck the best balance practicable and I ask the House not to accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 138.

Division No. 115.]
AYES
[10.40 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Ashton, Joe
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Molloy, William


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Baxter, William
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hooson, Emlyn
Pendry, Tom


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Prescott, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, w)
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Leonard Dick
Rowlands, Ted


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Doig, Peter
Lomas Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dormand, J. D
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
LyonS, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dunn, James A.
McBride, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Steel, David


Fisher, Mrs.Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ford, Ben
Marsden, F.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tinn, James


Gilbert, Dr. John
Meacher, Michael
Wallace, George


Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David




Weitzman, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Michael Cocks and


Whitehead, Phillip
Woof, Robert
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Whitlock, William






NOES


Adley, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Pounder, Rafton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Atkins, Humphrey
Hicks, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Awdry, Daniel
Hiley, Joseph
Pym. Rt. Hn. Francis


Baker W. H. K. (Banff)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Ralson, Timothy


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Holt, Miss Mary
Redmond, Robert


Benyon, W.
Hordern, Peter
Reed Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biffen, John
Hunt, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rost, Peter


Bray, Ronald
Jopling, Michael
Scott-HopKins, James


Brewis, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
shaw, Michael (Sc'b' gh &amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shersby, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Kinsey, J. R.
Simeones, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Kirk, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Churchill, W. S.
Knox, David
Soref, Harold


Clegg, Walter
Lamont, Norman
speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Lane David
Spence, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cormack, Patrick
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Sutcliffe, John


Crouch, David
Loveridge, John
Taylor Frank (Moss Side)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, MaJ.-Gen.Jack 
Luce, R. N.
Tebbit, Norman


Dean, Paul
McCrindle, R. A.
Temple, John M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McLaren Martin
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter Hendon, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Madel, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marten, Nell
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Fidler, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Walder, Davld (Clitheroe)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame lrene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fowler, Norman
Miscampbell, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fox Marcus
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wiggin, Jerry


Fras'er, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Moate, Roger
Wilkinston, John


Gibson Watt David
Money, Ernle
Winterton, Nicholas


Gower, Raymond
Monks Mrs. Connie
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monro, Hector
Woodhouse, Hn Christopher



Montgomery, Fergus
Woodnutl, Mark


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Murton, Oscar
Younger, Hn. George


Grieve, Percy
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grylls, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Gurden, Harold
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Parkinson, Cecil

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 4, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

No. 12, in page 5, line 3, leave out
'so resident, the county council may '
and insert
'resident within that area, the county council may, after consultation with the councils of the districts within the couny and wholly or partly within that area.'—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Clause 4

ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF NATIONAL WATER COUNCIL

Amendment made:

No 18, in page 7, line 11, leave out from 'Scotland' to 'and' in line 13 and insert

'the Ministry of Development in Northern Ireland, the Greater London Council and such associations of manufacturers, professional associations, local authority associations, trades unions'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in line 27, at end insert—
'(f) to review annually the work of the regional water authorities; to have special regard to their efficiency and their public accountability; to consider whether they are discharging their functions in a manner which enables the fullest expression of consumer and local authority interests to be taken into account; to consider the size of regional water authorities and to make recommendations to the Minister on any matters arising from such annual reviews'.
This amendment is concerned with the powers of the new National Water Council. We feel that the council should


have far more teeth than the Government seek to give it. I feel that the comments of Conservative back benchers in earlier discussions today would have been better deployed on this amendment. The Opposition had a great deal of sympathy with them in saying that boards should be given greater powers.
The powers given by the Government to the National Water Council in Clause 4 do not appear to add up to much. We see in subsection (5) that they include the duty of considering and advising the Minister
on any matter relating to the national policy for water …
But they do not appear to include special responsibility for planning and all that goes with it. The Minister apparently reserves this function to himself within the Department, and I believe that this this would be better if it were taken out of the Department.
Then in subsection (5)(b) we see that it is to be the council's duty
to promote and assist the efficient performance by water authorities of their functions …
We agree with that, but we do not know whether that is a meaningful obligation on the part of the national body.
Three other requirements are laid down by the Minister. The first concerns considering and advising the Minister on any matter on which the council is consulted —and I am sure nobody would object to that. If the Minister wants advice, presumably he could get it without writing it into the Bill. The two other requirements relate to testing of fittings, and training and education.
We are then left to consider the great vacuum that exists in the relationship between the National Water Council and the regional water authorities. The Bill proposes that the chairmen of the regional water authorities shall sit on the national water authority. We feel that the relationship between the national and regional water authorities should be much more clearly defined. Indeed the normal pattern when considering a national authority with a number of subsidiary authorities of one sort or another is for the national authority to have a greater degree of responsibility for those subsidiaries than is proposed in the Bill.
The obvious reason why the Government do not regard it as right to give the National Water Council such powers as we would give them is that the Minister does not regard the national water authority as the main instrument of Government policy but looks to the regional water authorities to fulfil this function. He is looking to the large regional water authorities which he is creating, and the only true purpose of the national authority, as he sees it, is to carry out a degree of co-ordination with a slight degree of national oversight.
Who is to have oversight of the work of the regional water authorities? This is not an academic question. It is a question of the greatest importance to every water consumer. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who has responsibility for consumer affairs. We have a great difficulty now— [Interruption.]. If she were to answer the debate we might get more satisfactory answers.
This is an extremely important point. If a domestic consumer is dissatisfied with the water service that he is receiving or with the arrangements for dealing with emergency repairs and pricing policy, he knows that he can take his complaint to his elected local authority and say, "My service is inadequate and the price I am being charged for the water is too high", and there is a definite degree of accountability. That is so in 80 per cent. of cases. In the other 20 per cent. of cases consumers can go to the directors or staff of the water company concerned. There is a direct relationship between the consumer and the authority providing the service.
All this is to be changed. We are to have these gigantic water authorities set up. For example, the Severn-Trent Water Authority, which is to have 20 members, will stretch from inside the Welsh border to Lincoln and from Stoke to Gloucester. It will be a fantastic size. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee objected and asked questions which still have not been answered. How can any person on an authority of that size adequately represent the consumer? He cannot. If the Secretary of State appoints a Welsh member to serve on the Severn-Trent Water Authority, which may decide to have its


headquarters at Nottingham or Birmingham—that is not an outlandish proposition—that member will have a two-day journey to attend a committee meeting.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): No, he will not.

Mr. Howell: Of course he will. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand the distances involved.

Mr. Thomas: I do.

Mr. Howell: There are no trunk roads or adequate motorways from the Principality to Birmingham which enable a person to get there and back in one day. In any event, the person appointed may not have his own transport. If he has to rely on public transport he will certainly require two days to attend a committee meeting.

Mr. Thomas: I hesitate to intervene on this matter, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. One can travel on dual carriageway all the way from Newport to Birmingham.

Mr. Howell: I wondered where the Secretary of State had been during our discussions. We are not talking about Newport, but about Montgomeryshire and the centre of Wales. One does not go down to Newport to get to Montgomeryshire. We are talking about a man coming across from the Elan Valley part of Wales if the Secretary of State appointed someone from that authority to serve on the Severn-Trent Water Authority. As I said, that man may not have his own transport. I am sure that we have not yet reached the stage where it might be said, "We shall not appoint people unless they can guarantee to provide their own transport to attend meetings."
I do not want to labour this point too much. There must be a relationship between the consumer and the person serving on the regional water authority. If there are to be only 20 members on these gigantic authority authorities, then I suggest that somebody must review how the system works in practice—whether regional water authorities are making sufficient arrangements for this degree of discussion and consultation with the consumer, whether there is a degree of public accountability. This is a matter of the greatest concern to all of us.
11.0 p.m.
In every nationalised industry there is that degree of public accountability to this place by one means or another. With every local authority there is a degree of public accountability, and even every private water company has a method of public accountability by the annual meeting when the shareholders can state their case.
How is there to be a degree of public accountability by the regional water authorities? The Minister must have given this some thought. All we say in the amendment is that the proper people on whom to place that responsibility, to see that there is adequate public accountability, must be the National Water Council.
If it is not the council it must be the Minister, and it should not be him but the National Water Council which should look at all the regional authorities and ask detailed questions about their efficiency, public policy, performance and accountability.
We should like to see, as we say in our amendment, that
the fullest expression of consumer and local authority interests
is taken into account.
We attach considerable importance to the last part of the amendment, that it should be the job of the National Water Council from time to time to consider the size of the regional water authorities and if it thinks it right—we are not asking that it be mandatory—in its examination of their performance, to make recommendations to the Minister. This is the most important part of the amendment because —and there is no party political point in this—the size of regional authorities gives us the greatest cause for concern. To be fair, it also causes the Minister concern, but for reasons of the hydrological cycle he could not find it possible to divide these authorities—not only the Severn-Trent but also the Anglia authority about which his hon. Friends complained in Committee.
When we see them in operation, surely the National Water Council should be able to ask themselves whether the regional authorities are working out. If the Minister has it wrong and the fears which some of us have expressed turn out to be right, surely the council should have the right to make recommendations to the


Minister and say, "We think you should divide the Severn-Trent and do something about the gigantic Thames or Anglia authorities." It should be able freely to come forward, to examine the developing situation and to make a recommendation to the Minister.
Unless we make this amendment it will be nobody's specific duty to have the performance of regional water authorities constantly under review, to see that they are doing their job efficiently, and to see that there is the degree of accountability to the consumer which we should all like. There should be power to make recommendations to the Minister.
If the Minister says, "I naturally expect the National Water Council to do this and to tell me what is happening", but it is not written into the Bill, the council will not systematically examine these matters from time to time, or indeed annually, as we ask. I hope that the Minister will find this a constructive approach and that if he does not like our amendment he will find it possible to bring in a form of words in another place to meet the point which is giving concern to all hon. Members.

Mr. Graham Page: I must go back to Clause 1 to answer the points the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) made, because that clause clearly states that the Secretary of State and the Ministers concerned shall be responsible for national strategy, the water policy for England and Wales. It also says that they shall see that the functions are discharged by certain authorities which have the power to do so under the Bill. There is a direct relationship between the Secretary of State and the regional authorities, which we deliberately made in drawing up the new structure.
I differ from the hon. Gentleman on the following matter. He wishes to put the National Water Council as a controlling body between the Secretary of State and the regional water authorities. We look on the Council as the body that the Secretary of State consults, not as a top-tier authority above the regional water authorities. The regional water authorities are the executive bodies for the new structure. They will have large resources, covering a large geographical area. We do not see the Council as the

big brother to the regional water authorities or as the top of the pyramid. It is the advisory body to the Secretary of State when he is carrying out his function under Clause 1—to have a national water policy and to see that it is carried out by the bodies and authorities to which the executive function is entrusted under the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asked how the regional water authorities, such large bodies, covering such large areas, keep in touch with the public and how they are responsive to public demand and public feeling. We have put on them a majority of local authority appointees, and hope that the regional water authorities will keep in touch with local feeling through those representatives on the committees.
I also draw attention to Clause 6(8), under which the regional water authorities have power to appoint committees. I hope that under that subsection they will appoint committees locally where they feel that there are community interests, committees that can be the communication between the public and them. I have in mind recommending that sort of thing to the water authorities by circular. It will take the place of the local authority representation on boards which at present forms a communication between the public and the water boards. I think that we can have the same sort of function for local committees appointed by the regional water authorities.
The hon. Gentleman said that we must write into the Bill the powers of the National Water Council. In his proposed new paragraph (f) he has set out the sort of things he wants written into the Bill, but almost all are in the Bill already. One proposed duty is
to review annually the work of the regional water authorities".
Under subsections 5(a) and (b) the Council has a duty
to consider, and advise any Minister on any matter relating to the national policy for water, and to consider and advise any Minister and the water authorities on any other matter of common interest to those authorities".
Then under paragraph (b) it is the duty of the council
… to promote and assist the efficient performance by water authorities of their functions …
and under Schedule 3(38) the council as well as the water authorities has to make


an annual report to the Minister. I should have thought that by providing for that annual report and by imposing the duty on the council to advise the Minister on the matters set out in Clause 4(5)(a) and (b), we had covered the hon. Gentleman's points.
The second sentence in the amendment refers to the need to have special regard to the water authorities' efficiency and their public accountability. I think that I have covered the efficiency point in the paragraphs that I have quoted. As for public accountability, I remind the House of Clauses 25 and 26, which deal with the financial provisions. Under Clause 25(2),
The Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with the Council direct …
as appropriate in connection with the financial schemes, and so on. There it is: after consultation with the council. Again in Clause 26(3) the Secretary of State is obliged to consult the council before he gives certain directions on financial matters.
There are these duties under the Bill for the Secretary of State to consult the council. There are duties on the council to advise the Ministers concerned. That advice must surely cover the size of the regional water authorities. This is a vital point in the Bill. No council could advise the Secretary of State that a water authority was carrying out its duties in a proper way if it thought that the authority was too big or too small. I am sure that that advice would come from the council if it thought amendments to the legislation were necessary, and those amendments could be carried out by order so far as they affected the geography of the regional water authorities.
The National Water Council has very considerable advisory powers. It was never intended to be an executive body, except in terms of water fittings and industrial training—the special items under Clause 4(5)(d) and (e). It is the important advisory body to the Secretary of State. In its advice it can cover all the points raised in the amendment and include such advice publicly in its annual report. I say that because the annual report has to be presented to the House. It has to be made known to the public.

The advice that it gives can be known to the House and will be known to the public, and it can be as strong as the council choose to make it.
I am sure that we have the structure of this right. In my view it would be wrong to set up a pyramid, with the National Water Council at the top and the regional water authorities as some second tier to the council.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: May I reply with the leave of the House? I found the Minister's reply in part satisfactory and in part disappointing. It was satisfactory because he agreed with everything I wanted to do in regard to a review and public accountability. That being so, I cannot understand why he cannot accept the amendment or something like it and write this provision into the Bill. I was disappointed because, when he sought to tell me why it was not necessary, he was quite off the ball and indeed, in part irrelevant.
The clauses to which the Minister referred me, Clauses 4, 25 and 26, were not on the point which concerns us. Clause 4(5) does not lay on the National Water Council any duty to review the work of the regional water authorities. I wish it did. It relates to its advising the Minister on various matters of policy relating to a national policy for water. That phrase would have to be interpreted very carefully if it were to be taken as meaning reviewing the work of the regional authorities. I am not a lawyer, as is the Minister and as are several hon. Members opposite at the moment, but I doubt whether the courts would interpret the phrase in that way.
Clauses 25 and 26, which he quoted as taking care of my point about public accountability, say that the Secretary of State has a duty to consult, but that does not deal with the issue I raised— the accountability of regional water authorities to their consumers. That is a matter which the Minister agrees must be of concern. Any body supplying a commodity must have regard to how it will be accountable to its consumers.
I do not want to press this amendment, but even at this late stage I hope that the Minister will think again. If he had undertaken that if, on further


reflection, he thought that I was right about public accountability and size, he would seek to deal with the matter, I should have been happy. If he still thought that he was right, I should be happy to leave it with him, although I am not convinced at this point of the logic of his argument.

Mr. Graham Page: I could not fail to respond to that. The hon. Gentleman is right about the sort of matter that he would like the National Water Council to lock at and advise the Secretary of State about. If he would agree that we should not build a hierarchy, with the National Water Council at the top and the regional water authorities at the bottom, I will look at it again on that basis.

Mr. Howell: I do not agree with the Minister about the rôle of the National Water Council, but I am not seeking to raise that matter again now. I hope that the Minister will accept that I am not trying to raise again something which was defeated earlier. In the light of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF WATER AUTHORITIES

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 35, after 'may', insert
'not later than 1st November 1973,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time, if the House agrees, the following amendments:
No. 21, in page 10, line 42, leave out 'not exceeding three' and insert ' of five';
No. 22, in page 11, line 5, leave out 'a water authority and an existing or other' and insert
'within a period of two months beginning with the date on which the water authority sent to the local authority their requirement under the preceding subsection, that water authority and that';
No. 23, in page 11, line 11, at end insert—

'(13) Not later than the second year of the period of an agreement under subsection (11) above and thereafter at yearly intervals the water authority and the local authority being parties to the agreement shall review the desirability of continuing in operation the arrangements under that agreement, with or without modification, for a further period of one year following the date currently appointed for the termination of such arrangements, and in the event of any disagreement between the water authority and the local authority the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of State for determination under subsection (12) above'.

Mr. Jones: I would link the Amendments in two pairs—Nos. 20 and 22, and Nos. 21 and 23.
Clause 6 (11) recognises the difficulty inherent in the timetable proposed for the reorganisation of the water and sewerage services, and the amendments are directed towards the programming of the work. I asked whether the new regional water authorities will be ready on 1st April next year to take over responsibilities being entrusted to them by the Bill and whether they will continue to need assistance from those sections of local government responsible for some of the services which are to be transferred. If the existing authorities and the new authorities are not forewarned of the regional water authorities' likely demands on them well in advance of 1st April next year, it may be that the work cannot be undertaken. The purpose of the date of 1st November 1973 is to provide a terminal date by which new regional authorities must make their requests to local authorities so that the latter may be able to make appropriate staffing arrangements.
The other point is different in character and relates to the inconvenience or even the unfairness which could be caused for the new local authorities, and perhaps more particularly for their staffs, as a result of the clause. I refer to the uncertainty about the future and the degree to which their services will be required in the future.
Clause 6 (11) mentions a period not exceeding three years from 1st April 1973. That is a period which does not offer much in the way of career prospects for staffs. One interpretation is that the period could be of shorter duration, but I wonder whether my right hon. Friend does not feel that it would be preferable to provide a certain period of five years. Surely this is a more reasonable period


for local authority staffing arrangements. Mention is made in the amendment of an annual review so that there will be a continual period of five years security on the basis of a rolling programme.

Mr. Graham Page: May I deal with Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 together first because they go together. It would be acceptable to have some form of time limit in the Bill, but it is not clear to me that 1st November 1973 is the right date for the purpose. I admit that it is the date prescribed by the Bill for the sending out by water authorities of draft orders for sewerage under Clause 15 and by statutory water companies under Clause 11. But that was criticised in Committee. I defended it then, for the time being at least, by pointing out that these arrangements were likely to be in a stereotyped form.
The arrangements under Clause 6(11) are likely to be extremely varied and a later date may be appropriate. Nor is this necessarily unreasonable from the local authorities' point of view. A typical case covered by the subsection will be one in which it is reasonable to continue to make full use of existing administrative machinery, for example revenue and rate collection, which a local authority would in any case be retaining for that purpose.
I should like to assure the House that I will consider the introduction of a time limit and at a later stage in the Bill, when we see how the Bill is progressing and when we know what time is left for us to deal with these matters, will give further consideration to the best date for that purpose. The question of prescribing the fixed period for reaching agreement can be covered at the same time. I apologise for not being firm on these issues, but they are points which we can assess only when we get to the stage of knowing when the Bill is likely to get the Royal Assent and when we know how long we have to deal with these matters.
On the other pair of amendments, Nos. 21 and 23, I would be happy to see the House accept Amendment No. 21, which is an extension of the three years to five.
I appreciate that it might be difficult for local authorities to retain staff to service this kind of assistance if the period

during which it is required is as short as three years. As the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) will remember, there would be advantages if the initial period for the arrangements were in line with that laid down for the traditional working arrangements under the Local Government Act 1972. This would tie things up and it would be an improvement.
I am doubtful about Amendment No. 23. It is a question of reviewing the arrangements every year. I am not sure that this would give the proper stability for the transitional period. We do not want to pull the thing up by the roots to see how it is growing. It might be that this would defeat the purpose of the first amendment which I would like the House to accept. I would have to resist Amendment No. 23.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, particularly for accepting one of the amendments. Accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made:

No 21, in page 10, line 42, leave out 'not exceeding three' and insert 'of five'. —[Mr. Arthur Jones.]

Clause 9

WATER CONSERVATION

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 12, line 25, at end insert
'and without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act a water authority may contribute to the expenses of another water authority under this section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 61, in Clause 22, page 25, line 14, after ' 1974'. insert
'in consultation with any water authority or authorities for an area or areas adjacent to that of the first-mentioned authority'.

Mr. Jones: The point I want to raise is to do with Amendment No. 61. That amendment speaks for itself and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept it.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not want to accept Amendment No. 24 and I will not therefore spend any time on it. All I need say is that it is unnecessary. The point is already covered. The regional water authorities have the power which it was feared they might not have.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow Amendment No. 61 to be moved formally when we come to it because it is an amendment which can be accepted. My first impression on reading it was that the authority would be crazy if they did not consult their neighbours, and if they did not do so the Secretary of State would probably knock their heads together, so to speak, by using his powers of direction under a later clause. But I see no harm in writing this into the Bill, although I am sure that all reasonable water authorities will carry out exactly what my hon. Friend wishes. If this makes it clearer, let us have it in the Bill.

Mr. Jones: In view of what my right hon. Friend said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

WATER SUPPLY

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 13, line 9, after 'so', insert:
'by the local authority, by a parish or community council or'.
This amendment relates to subsection (4), which provides that
If any question arises under subsection (2) above whether or not a supply in pipes or a public supply can be provided at a reasonable cost in the area of a local authority …
a request shall be considered by the Secretary of State if it is supported by 10 or more local government electors in the local authority area.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide similar grounds for the Secretary of State on representations from a district council, a parish or a community council.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not intend to gild the lily. My hon. Friend has ex-

plained the purpose of the amendment and I ask the House to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Neil Marten: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 13, line 12, at end insert:
'() Where a community is served by spring water and the water authority proposes to supply that community with its water, the Secretary of State shall, if requested to do so by ten or more local government electors from that community who object to the proposal of the water authority, refer the proposal to an independent inquiry, the report of which shall be considered by the Minister before he determines the issue and instructs the water authority how to proceed'.
I shall not speak for long, because the whole history of this matter was deployed in an Adjournment debate on 9th June last year, but I must briefly explain the background, otherwise the amendment will not make sense as an addendum. The question concerns the village of Chadlington, in my constituency. It is in a hilly area, and for many decades it has had the most beautiful spring water to drink. I have lived in the village and I can confirm that. But at the top of the village, at the top of the hill, a few houses had no adequate water pressure, and under the Act the water board had a duty to see that sufficient pressure reached the topmost room of the topmost house. This did not happen, so the board decided to put Chadlington on the mains, with water that had been distilled and filtered. Naturally, the villagers objected, and proposed a solution that would have worked, to get the pressure up to the topmost houses while remaining on the spring water supply.
But at that point, when that proposal looked as if it could have solved the whole problem, the water board said, "Your water from the spring, which has been with you and which the village has drunk for decades, is not pure". This looked like a secondary argument, so the village formed a committee and obtained samples of the water, and had great experts to examine it, and those experts said that the water was pure and fit to be drunk, but the experts for the water board said that it was not. There were two entirely opposite points of view, both sincerely held.
There was a slight suspicion—I do not say that the suspicion was rightly held— that the water board was using this as a


means to get mains water laid on under pressure to the topmost houses. I was brought into the matter and I approached the Minister—the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry—and said, "There is this division of opinion. I wonder whether you could appoint an inspector to hear both sides of the argument and come to a conclusion and advise you, the Minister. You can then say whether Chadlington should go on the water mains". To my surprise—and, I suspect, rather to the surprise of the Minister— it was found that under the legislation the Minister had no power to intervene in the matter. In the event, Chadlington was put on the water main but the village remained somewhat suspicious about whether the impurity of the water which was the reason given, was the real reason for that being done.
The purpose of the amendment is to cover cases such as that. I am sure that there will not be many such cases but, nevertheless, in the interests of people who live in villages such as Chadlington —and, after all, this is largely about water for people—the amendment should be accepted. Its purpose is largely to satisfy public opinion that the evidence has been properly heard, properly sifted and properly weighed and pronounced upon. It is not enough to say that there was a representative of Chadlington on the local water board, because under the new arrangements the representative on the water authority may come from nowhere near the village.
Secondly, I want to give people the right to have their say in a matter such as this. It is their lives and their water, and if they have for a long time drunk this excellent and beautiful water I do not see why they should not continue to do so.
Thirdly, I do not want the decision to be made by a water authority which would be judge in its own court in a case like this. I want the matter to be subjected to an inquiry by an inspector who will report to the Minister, and the Minister, having read all the evidence and the inspector's recommendations, will pronounce upon the matter. The people of a village such as Chadlington would be happy to accept the finding provided that the whole thing had been looked at fairly.
I have put in the amendment that if 10 or more local government electors from a community object to the proposal of the water authority the proposal should be referred to an independent inquiry and the report should then be considered by the Minister.
That is all that I have to say about the amendment. At this late hour I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I am proposing a simple thing. I do not think that it would do any harm if it were added to the clause, because I cannot believe that there are many more cases like this one. As one who has an interest in the rights of people, and particularly in their right to enjoy the water they like, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept this simple and harmless amendment. I think that he would be wise to accept it.

Mr. Graham Page: This is a fascinating case, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has put it in the most interesting way. I suppose one might brush this aside by saying that when the boards have become merged in the regional water authorities such efficient bodies will they be that this sort of thing will not happen, but one should not brush the matter aside like that.
The position is that subsection (1) places on the new water authorities the duty to supply water, which at present rests on the statutory water undertakers, including the joint water boards. As part of that duty the statutory undertakers have certain obligations towards their consumers placed on them by the Water Act 1945, one of which is to provide a potable supply of water for domestic purposes constantly and at sufficient pressure. Water undertakers are under no obligation to supply any particular area or group of consumers from any particular source, and that is where the trouble occurs in this case.
A water undertaker would be in default of its statutory duty if it failed to rectify low pressure to some consumers. The decision as to the manner in which a water undertaker should remedy deficiencies in supply is entirely for it to take, and as the law now stands the Secretary of State has no jurisdiction, although he has powers under Section 13 of the Water Act 1945, to hold an inquiry into any complaint that a water undertaker has failed to carry


out its statutory duties. That, of course, was not at issue in the Chadlington case, which concerned the way the duties were carried out.
The effect of the amendment would be to empower the Secretary of State to intervene as to the method by which an authority was carrying out the statutory duty to supply water. My difficulty is that it is our aim in the Bill to devolve responsibility as much as possible from the centre to the regional authorities and to let them carry on their business as commercial undertakings and to supply the water by the method they think is economical and efficient and to provide wholesome water.
To that extent, I must admit that the authorities are judges of their own actions. But, of course, this is also to a great extent true of anyone supplying some consumable service or goods. In this case, the county councillor and the representative of the district council, both of them being members of the Oxford and District Joint Water Board, played an active part in the discussions with the villagers of Chadlington. I think we want to retain that channel of communication if we can.
It can be said, as my hon. Friend did say, that this is less likely to happen when there are comparatively few local authority representatives on the regional water authorities when one compares the number of joint bodies and the number of local representatives on these boards. But I repeat that under Clause 6 the regional water authorities can set up local advisory committees, and I intend to give some advice to regional water authorities on the setting up of those committees.
Local authority members may well have a rôle to play in these circumstances as a medium of communication between the consumers and the regional water authorities. That the county council and district council representatives were not successful in this case is irrelevant to my point. I do not want to destroy that sort of communication but to build it up as much as possible in the future.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider the point that we can retain a channel of communication between consumers and the regional water authorities by means of local committees. If he replies, "This will not do; we want something more".

I am quite prepared to look at it again, although without giving any assurances or undertakings. I am a little reluctant to set up any new forms of inquiry for the Secretary of State to undertake. It seems to be rather like taking a sledge hammer to swat a gnat—and I say that without any intention of being rude to Chadlington—to have public inquiries over matters like that.

Mr. Simeons: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the question of pressure. There may be a minimum pressure which the statutory undertakers are compelled to supply, but they are not compelled to notify considerable changes in pressure. If one bears in mind the fire loss that can be involved, will my right hon. Friend look into this question with regard to responsibilities of regional water authorities?

Mr. Page: I think the same applies again. It would be fatal to the whole structure of the Bill if we allowed everyone to run to the Secretary of State on all the duties of a regional water authority about the precise way in which these were being carried out. We must leave it to the authorities to carry on their business and I am sure that they will do it in the proper way without an appeal court in Marsham Street. We want to leave them to do their job.
I am prepared to look at this again. I have a sort of horror that if a regional water authority got away with it in future in a Chadlington type case, we might have no Harrogate Spas or Leamington Spas where the beautiful water is drunk— I do not know. I suppose that it is taken by licence from the river authorities. This needs a little more examination. If my hon. Friend feels that the local advisory committees are no good, I ask him to come to me again, and we will see what we can think out.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comment, and I will certainly follow it up. In any advice that he might give to such a body I hope that he will emphasise that a dispute between two sincerely held views should be referred to an independent body to give an independent view as to which is right. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 13, line 14, after 'undertakers', insert 'as such'.
This is a drafting amendment. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) will wish to have recorded in the annals of the House that he sponsored an amendment to insert after "undertakers" the words "as such", but I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to this. The amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave my hon. Friend in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

SUPPLY OF WATER BY STATUTORY WATER COMPANIES ON BEHALF OF WATER AUTHORITIES

Sir Robin Turton: I beg to move Amendment No. 172, in page 14, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'authority' in line 3 and insert 'A water'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 173, in line 4, leave out 'the company ' and insert
'the statutory water undertakers whose limits of supply are included in whole or in part in their area.".
No. 174, in line 7, leave out 'company' and insert 'statutory water undertakers'.
No. 175, in line 9, leave out 'company' and insert
'statutory water undertakers' and leave out 'company undertakes' and insert 'undertakers undertake'.
No. 176, in line 17, leave out 'company 'and insert' statutory water undertakers'.
No. 177, in line 20, leave out first 'company' and insert 'statutory water undertakers'.
No. 178, in line 25, leave out 'company' and insert 'undertakers'.
No. 179, in line 35, leave out 'a statutory water company' and insert 'statutory water undertakers'.
No. 180, in line 36, leave out 'company' and insert 'undertakers'.
No. 181, in line 37, leave out 'it' and insert 'them'.
No. 182, in line 40, leave out 'a statutory water company' and insert 'any statutory water undertakers'.
No. 183, in line 40, leave out 'company' and insert 'undertakers'.
No. 184, in page 15, line 1, leave out 'a statutory water company, joint water board or joint water committee' and insert 'statutory water undertakers'.
No. 185, in line 3, leave out 'company or companies in question is or' and insert 'undertakers'.
No. 186, in line 8, leave out 'a statutory water company' and insert 'any statutory water undertakers'.
No. 187, in Clause 29, page 32, leave out lines 30 to 34.

Sir Robin Turton: Do I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in addition to Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments, we are to discuss Amendment No. 190, in page 14, line 20, leave out second 'company' and insert 'statutory water undertakers'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Sir Robin Turton: Amendment No. 172 and its 16 consequential amendments are designed to give to joint water boards the same agency powers as under Clause 11 are to be enjoyed by statutory undertakers.
The history of water authorities is that in 1955 there were 1,100 water authorities, many of them small and inefficient. Now there are 28 statutory water companies and 170 joint water boards. All are now large and efficient. In the Bill 28 statutory water companies are selected to carry out agency powers, and yet the 170 which are quite as efficient and which cover usually the wider open spaces in the country are being excluded and, under Clause 29, are being abolished from next April.
This means that over most of the country there will be no grass roots organisation. At present with local authority joint water boards there is a democratic channel of communication between the water consumer and the local elected member of the board, and that is what we are trying to replace. This gap in


the Bill has been mentioned many times in debates on earlier amendments.
To illustrate what will happen I will take the Yorkshire area with 4½ million inhabitants and 12 local authority representatives. The only channel of communication in that area will be the one local authority representative for putting forward the complaints of 380,000 electors. That is an impossible position, as has been recognised by the Minister in his recent observations.
An even more dramatic contrast is shown in my constituency. Some of my constituents will be in the area of a statutory water undertaker and when they have a complaint about charging or distribution they can take their complaint to a director of the board and have it properly dealt with. But the rest of the area will be under the Yorkshire Water Authority and there will be no easy channel of communication except by an approach to the official.
That cannot be rectified by the Minister's suggestion that the regional water authorities may or may not appoint advisory committees. It is not the same thing to have advisory committees as to have local authorities acting as agents for regional water authorities. Many of the nationalised boards have consumer advisory committees but they do not give the same satisfaction as a local authority would give when acting as an agent.
That is also recognised by what will happen during the transitional period. During that period those who are now joint water boards will be provisional management units acting as agents for the regional water authorities. That will be limited to three years. The amendments do not attempt to interfere with the giving to regional water authorities of full powers to deal with planning and resources. This is an attempt to put them in the same position as the statutory water board undertakings—namely, to give them agency powers.
I hope that when the Minister replies to this series of amendments he will give us some picture of how in a water area such as that of my constituency, and the constituencies of many hon. Members, he sees a grass roots organisation dealing with complaints about distribution

and charging going through locally elected representatives to the regional water authorities. The right way for that to happen is to give such organisations agency powers. I cannot conceive of any area of a regional water authority finding it possible to carry out its work of dealing with the complaints and problems which are inevitably connected with distribution and charging without some method of locally elected committees acting for it as agents. The Minister may have talked about local committees, but they cannot merely be advisory committees.
In the reorganisation I hope that every effort will be made to keep local headquarters and local water depots going where they are now. They are a focal point for complaints from water consumers. There have been statements made in Yorkshire that on reorganisation it is the intention of those who think that they will become the regional water authority to shut down the local depots and local headquarters of water authorities. That has caused great consternation.
It is the view in many parts of the country that one of the weaknesses of the Bill is that it will be handing over the whole system of water distribution and charging from a local authority system to a system which will be run bureaucratically. Many of the conferences which have taken place with the present statutory water undertakers have left that impression. It has caused a great deal of consternation and a good deal of hostility to the Bill. That would be removed entirely if this series of amendments were accepted now or given further consideration in another place.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). In my constituency with the so-called rationalisation of the gas and electricity boards local offices frequently are closed and the accessibility of the boards to local complaints is much less than it used to be. This is a cause for complaint and is something of which I am very much aware. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are anxious to avoid any such criticisms being levelled at the new water authorities.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State wishes there to be a medium of communication between the public and the providers of the water services. He believes that the local authorities have a special value in that they are locally accessible and know the local situation.
The Government recognise that the elected members of joint water boards provide a useful line of communication between consumers and water undertakings. The new water authorities will retain an extensive divisional organisation of local depots, local offices and local points of contact for the convenience of the consumer. In addition, in Clause 6(8) of the Bill the new authorities will have power to set up advisory committees and my right hon. and learned Friend intends to draw this provision to the attention of the new regional water authorities and to the use which could be made of it in appropriate circumstances in setting up local advisory committees, which would include locally elected members, to act as a channel of communication between the consumer and the water authority.
I give my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton that assurance. But I think he feels that we should go further and that it is not sufficient for there simply to be an advisory committee. He wants the elected local authorities somehow still to be able to act, as it were, as consumer councils. Because the Government are anxious to protect consumer interests in many matters as well as in considerations affecting water, my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to consider the matter in the light of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. If we are able to find some way in which the elected local authorities can effectively continue to advise the regional water authorities on consumer interests within their areas, we shall be glad to put forward our conclusions in another place. I am not able to give any firm undertaking, but we shall look at the matter and I am sure the subject will be fully explored in another place.

Sir Robin Turton: Having heard what my hon. Friend said, and in full confidence that the matter will be fully

debated in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in line 36, after 'steps', insert 'at the expense of the company'.
Water companies are required to provide a water supply for the regional water authorities. I wish to ask whether subsection (6) places an obligation on the regional water authority to ensure the viability of a statutory water company, its proper management, and to ensure that it keeps the regional water authority supplied with water. What means are there for ensuring that the company is required to pay for any supplies which are made available to it under the subsection? That is the question an answer to which is required in the terms of the amendment.

12 midnight.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend has reasonably posed a question that requires an answer. I suspect that the amendment is prompted by the belief, which has been expressed by a number of local authority associations, that no provision is made for a statutory water company to contribute towards the cost of works by the water authority which, directly or indirectly, benefit that particular private company's customers.
I assure my hon. Friend that that anxiety is unfounded. First, the company will pay charges in connection with its licence to abstract water. Those charges, which will be paid to the RWA, will correspond to those which it pays at present to the river authorities under the Water Resources Act.
Secondly, it will make direct payments to the relevant water authority for any bulk supplies of water that it receives from that authority, and in many cases it will receive a good deal.
Thirdly, the other provisions of the 1963 Act will continue to apply—notably Section 81, which provides, inter alia, for ad hoc agreements to be made for a contribution by a company to a water authority towards the cost of the works which my hon. Friend has in mind.
I assure my hon. Friend that the amendment is unnecessary. This point


is covered within the terms of the Bill and the preceding legislation that is caught up and applied by way of the various clauses in it. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, because it is important that the local authority associations should know that these requirements to pay for the water received, for the licences and to make agreements on an ad hoc basis exist within the Bill and will be effective on the statutory companies.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation and assurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14

SEWERAGE AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 17, line 43, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) Before constructing, diverting or closing a public sewer in the area of a local authority a water authority shall consult the local authority and the water authority shall inform a local authority of the construction, diversion or closure of a public sewer by the water authority in the area of the local authority'.
This amendment fulfils an undertaking that I gave in Committee in response to an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) requiring a water authority to consult the district or London borough council before constructing, diverting or closing a public sewer. The amendment preserves the requirement on a water authority to inform the district or London borough council of the construction, diversion or closure of a public sewer after it has taken place so that the council can keep its map of public sewers up to date.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF SEWERAGE FUNCTIONS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 18, line 30, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 34 and insert—



'(a) require the relevant authority to prepare and annually revise a programme for the discharge of the said functions as respects their area, having regard to any guidance given to them by the water authority, and to submit every such programme to the water authority for their approval;
(b) require the relevant authority to carry out any programme approved by the water authority under paragraph (a) above;
(c) provide for vesting in the water authority any public sewer provided by the relevant authority in pursuance of the arrangements;
(d) require the relevant authority to provide such vehicles and equipment as may be necessary for maintaining the sewers which it is their function to maintain under the arrangements;
(e) provide for the water authority to reimburse the relevant authority any expenses incurred by the latter in the discharge of the said functions;
(f) provide for the relevant authority to conduct on behalf of the water authority any prosecutions or other legal proceedings in connection with the discharge of those functions; and
(g) provide for the transfer to the water authority of officers of the relevant authority in the event of the ending of the arrangements under subsection (6) below and for the compensation of any such officers who suffer loss as a result of any variation or the ending of the arrangements under this subsection.'


This amendment follows a day-long discussion in Committee. The Opposition protested that the substance of the document prepared by the Department on the heads of agreement for the sewerage arrangements to be made between the water authorities and the relevant local authorities did not appear in the Bill. I objected to giving any assurance that such an agreement should appear in the Bill because I thought that it should be a matter for the authorities concerned. However, I promised to consider whether it would be possible to direct what matters should be dealt with by an agreement between the two parties and to give guidelines to that extent.
This is what the amendment is intended to do. It is intended only as an indication of the main matters which should be included in such an agreement and does not specify the details or anything of that kind. The actual substance of the agreement must be agreed between the parties in each case. I hope that this meets the point which a number of hon. Members made in Committee—that we should set out in the Bill what we expect from these agreements, if not the precise details of the agreements.

Mr. Oakes: I rise only to thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting this provision in the Bill. I am certain that in that day-long debate we were right and that what we were asking for was that the guidelines should be in. We never expected the detailed form of agreement to be in, but it is right and proper that, in the creation of new authorities, where there are existing authorities and new authorities, the Bill should spell this out. It does it well in this way and we welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 18, leave out lines 38 to 41.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can take the following amendments
No. 42, in page 19, line 46, after '1965' insert:
'or in relation to the area of a joint sewerage board'.
No. 43, in line 47, leave out:
'and'.
No. 44, in page 20, line 5, at end insert 'and
(c) in relation to any such area of a joint sewerage board, the joint sewerage board'.

Mr. Jones: These are consequential upon one another and deal with the situation in Clause 15 which provides for the new district councils to have what is described as a "control function" in sewerage.
It is likely to give rise to anomalies because in its present form there is no provision for joint sewerage boards or joint authorities and councils have no provision for arrangements involving several authorities.
This should be rectified and the object here is to secure that where a group of authorities work together in a joint sewerage board, they will be able to continue, preserving joint arrangements, with the same provision for working as agents for the regional authority as will apply in the area of other local authorities.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should dearly like to accept any amendments moved by my hon. Friend or by anybody else at this hour of the night, but I fear that I must advise the House not to accept this group of amendments.
I am advised that the amendments as drafted would lead to such administrative difficulties as to make the system unworkable. I am advised that in London the management of main outfall sewers would be parcelled out among London boroughs when neither they nor their predecessors have ever had responsibility for them and joint boards would be required to manage sewers for which they had never had responsibility before.
These are technical difficulties, but apart from them, the amendments arise from the concern of local authorities who believe that there is a weakness in the Bill in that local authorities will no longer be able to exercise their sewerage functions through a joint sewerage board. In fact, the functions which the Government propose to give local authorities in Clause 15 are functions which district or London borough councils will be able to exercise on their own account. This is the very reason for giving the functions to them, because they are concerned with housing and development and that is the Government's reason for thinking it right that they should have sewerage responsibility.
I am advised that in the vast majority of cases the local councils in question will be perfectly capable of exercising those functions without need of joint powers, but so far as there is need for co-ordinating action between several authorities, this can be secured by virtue of the fact that they will be operating under arrangements made by the same water authority.
It was decided to exclude the trunk sewers owned by the joint sewerage boards and the GLC from the scope of the arrangements under the clause, because their design and operation are inextricably associated with that of the sewage disposal works. For that reason the GLC has informed my right hon. Friend that if it is not to retain control of its sewerage disposal works it has no interest in retaining any functions in relation to the trunk sewers that it now owns. The various joint sewerage boards would no doubt take a similar view.
I believe that that is a satisfactory answer to the points my hon. Friend has made, and I hope that he will accept it.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had heard of the decision of the GLC that if it could not have the disposal it did not want the trunk sewers.
My hon. Friend read from his brief a litle more into my amendment than I had intended. I noticed that he stuck almost as closely to his brief as I did to mine. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to contest what he said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 19, line 39 leave out subsection (8) and insert—
'(8) Any arrangements made by a local authority or committee under subsection (7) above for the discharge of any functions by a committee, sub-committee or officer shall not prevent the authority or committee by whom the arrangements are made from discharging those functions'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Amendment No. 40, in page 19, line 39, leave out subsection (8).

Mr. Page: Amendment No. 41 fulfils an undertaking I gave in Committee in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North-ants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones), by limiting the application of subsection (8) to any internal arrangements which may be made by a local authority for the discharge of sewerage functions by virtue of subsection (7).
My hon. Friend, obviously expecting that I might not be able to draft the right amendment in time to restrict its application, tabled his own amendment, No. 40, to wipe out subsection (8). But we need it for the purpose of internal arrangements—sub-committees and so on. However, it need not go as far as it did when the Bill was drafted.
My amendment makes it clear that arrangements between a water authority and a local authority for the performance of sewerage functions are to be terminated only under subsection (6), which provides for a reference to the Secretary of State in the event of disagreement.
I think that this meets the points my hon. Friend raised when moving his amendment in Committee, and I hope that he will feel that it is not necessary to

remove subsection (8) altogether now that we are restricting it by my amendment.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, though I question what he said about my motivation for tabling my amendment. I did not think it was likely to be interpreted as meaning that I thought he might not put down his amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 20, line 26, at end insert—
'(2A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
The amendment corrects an oversight in the drafting of the Bill, and fulfils an undertaking given in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) For the discharge of their functions relating to the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of marine waters, water authorities shall establish separate committees of theirs in respect of the estuaries and coastal waters in their area, and where an estuary is situated in the areas of two or more water authorities, they shall establish separate joint committees of theirs to discharge such functions'.
We are not directly concerned in the Bill with measures to combat water pollution. We have been promised comprehensive anti-pollution legislation in the next Session, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have accepted that all discharges to estuaries and the sea should be regulated. But though we are not concerned here with measures to protect the environment, we are creating an organisation one of whose functions will be to check the contamination of water. It might be said that this is one of the most important of the functions of the regional water authorities since the assumption on which the whole reform is based is that to meet future demands we shall have


to husband existing water resources more efficiently. This means greater emphasis on the elimination of waste through re-cycling and reclamation.
In this House, I have frequently heard accusations that the pollution control agencies are too much under the thumb of polluters. The charge in particular has been levelled against present-day polluters in relation to river authorities. Yet in this Bill sewerage—the major source of pollution—and river management will be gathered under a single roof and the regional water authorities will be both the judge and the jury.
This is a departure from principle and practice in pollution control. But in my view the departure is justifiable in terms of fresh water or non-tidal rivers in the interests of integrated management of water resources from the collection point to the final point of disposal.
Clearly if the regional water authorities fall down on their sewage disposal function, they will also fall down on their water supply function. Consequently there will be pressures within the organisation to restore and maintain the wholesomeness of our rivers and water courses. But in respect of salt water-in the Bill we are giving regional water authorities jurisdiction over coastal areas —no such internal pressures will exist.
The sea and the arms of the sea form no part of the flow system created by engineers for water management purposes. It is true that tidal waters form part of nature's hydrological cycle, but we are not concerned with that here. That process is self-cleansing, anyway. It is also true that large quantities of sea water are abstracted by industry for cooling purposes. But this is a simple borrowing and returning process. Not a drop of saline water is fed into the public water supply. In short, estuaries and tidal waters are the sump and not a conduit of the flow system used in water management.
My concern is that, given the growing water shortages in different parts of the country, the regional water authorities will tend to devote all their efforts to cleaning up our non-tidal rivers and to neglect discharges into estuaries and the sea and, what is worse, they will be tempted to relieve the pressure upstream by moving the pollution load downstream, making increasing use of estuaries for

waste disposal purposes without proper regard to the interests which could be irrevocably damaged as a result.
Experience in the past 10 years confirms my fears in this respect. During that period we have seen a progressive improvement in the quality of our rivers but a progressive deterioration of our estuaries. The one exception to that is the Thames Estuary and there, interestingly enough, the control of pollution has been exercised by the Port of London Authority, a body independent of the river authorities, though the river authorities are represented on it.
If the regional water authorities had no one but themselves to consider, logically they would tend to encourage the present movement of industry to the coast and away from inland rivers. Since these authorities are to be given responsibility over discharges in marine waters, the pressure on them to clean estuaries will have to come from outside and not from within the controlling agency as presently constituted. Outside pressure, one hopes, will come from the public, from coastal communities and from Parliament and the Government, but I would feel happier if the new organisation were structured in a way that would ensure that marine interests are more effectively represented.
I suggest in the amendment that this could be done by establishing separate committees specifically charged with the task of protecting estuaries and those parts of the territorial sea that fall within the jurisdiction of the new authorities. We could then establish a countervailing influence. Admittedly, under Clause 6, it is open to these authorities to form such committees themselves, but if they had a statutory obligation to do so, the committees would enjoy greater authority and status. Parliament would be signifying its concern for the health of our estuaries, which have been identified by the Royal Commission as being more vulnerable to pollution than any other part of the British environment.
In considering the merits of this proposal, I hope that my right hon. Friend will remember that coastal communities are economically and socially dependent on the cleanliness of their seaboard to a degree that no inland community is in relation to a river. In the one, fish and


amenity are a sport and pleasure. In the other, they are the means of earning a livelihood.
The second part of the amendment seeks to implement the Royal Commission's third report. One of the arguments against giving regional water authorities control over estuaries and the coastal sea is that their boundaries, naturally enough, are often drawn to coincide with major rivers and their tributaries, with the result that the seaboard within the area of each authority does not coincide with conditions existing offshore, a factor that we must take into account in considering marine pollution.
On the eastern seaboard of the Irish Sea, for example, there are now to be two regional water authorities, although hydrographically the area between Walnsy Island near Barrow and Point Lynas in Anglesey form a single unit. Interfaces have to be drawn somewhere, but it is particularly important that they should not be drawn in estuaries. I know that my hon. Friends appreciate this point and that they have done their best, in drawing the boundaries of the regional water authorities, to avoid dividing up the estuaries, but even so, the Thames, the Humber and the Severn will be subject to multiple jurisdiction.
As the Clause stands, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct the authorities to form joint committees in cases like this. But surely it would be preferable to place a clear duty on them to do so. The Royal Commission was categorical on this point:
… the problems of pollution in estuaries, which are important centres for industry, must be dealt with by one authority—if necessary an ad hoc one for a particular estuary— which has more than consultative status.
In recommending unified control, the Commission did not mean just control over discharges managed by the water authorities but a single authority to coordinate the work of all bodies concerned with pollution in estuaries, dumping of waste from ships, dredging, spoil, spillage from tankers, as well as effluent discharges from pipes and drains. In fact, the Royal Commission believed that our estuaries must be managed as a single entity and that waste disposal is only one part of marine resource management.
In the long run, I am convinced that we shall have to establish much more comprehensive marine planning organisation in the coastal zone. I hope that the Government have noted that the Americans have recently created a series of coastal sea authorities to manage their own coastal zone—a proposal that I have been urging on the Government for the past 18 months. In the meantime, I hope that they will feel able to accept the moderate proposal in the Amendment. They have, after all, endorsed the concept of an integrated approach to inland waters. How is it possible then to accept anything less than a total approach to the blue belt around our shores?

Mr. Oakes: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed), not only for the Amendment but for the very able and cogent way in which he has moved it. He and I share two things. One is an affection for the town of Bolton, where he represents the other half than that which I used to represent, and the other is a keen interest in oceanology and the things affecting our shores and our ocean waters, particularly around the British Isles.
The hon. Member rightly said that some of the areas of joint jurisdiction— the Severn, the Humber and so on—are danger points, and that there should be a statutory duty for these estuarial committees to be set up and not left as a discretion. There is also a great deal of validity in what he said about our marine waters and the dangers inherent in some of these new authorities getting rid of their responsibilities to avoid polluting the rivers by dumping out to sea.
I know that the Government intend— I hope that they do this next year—in accordance with a United Nations resolution, to bring in legislation with regard to sea dumping. It is particularly relevant to our part of the world, Liverpool and off Lancashire, because we have been very alarmed at proposals that up to six times the present amount of sludge could be dumped in Liverpool Bay, not far from the coastal resorts of North Wales, the Mersey Estuary, the Wirral Peninsula and the coastal resorts of Lancashire. There was a report to the effect that this would be quite harmless, but that was based on one brief study and the long-term ecological results of such things as


trace elements in the sewage could not be discovered in the period of that report. There could be a risk of water authorities disposing of their sewage either as sludge or by pumping it out into coastal waters. The hon. Member rightly suggests that there should be separate estuarial committees in these matters, but particularly where there is effluent from different authorities in one estuary.
I hope that the Government consider the Amendment seriously. It is very similar in purpose, if not in wording, to one moved from this side of the House in Standing Committee. If the Government cannot accept the exact wording I hope that the Minister will make some sympathetic noises to the effect that they will, in another place, look at what the hon. Member is proposing in this useful amendment.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am most anxious to make sympathetic noises in the hope of pleasing the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). I agree that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) has a good deal to be said for it. It was moved most cogently and convincingly. The amendment would impose two requirements on the water authorities. First, they would have to establish separate committees, and secondly, where an estuary was situated partly in the area of one authority and partly in the area of another, they would have to establish separate joint committees to discharge these functions.
I have difficulty in accepting the proposition as it stands. This is, first, because the water authorities will have complete power, under the Bill, to set up whatever committees they choose. It would be wrong for Parliament to lay down a particular form of administration or structure of management. I can tell my hon. Friend that at the moment there is a working party considering the management structure of the new authorities, sitting under the chairmanship of the town clerk of Manchester.
This committee will be offering advice to the new regional water authorities. I am sure that it will take account of the points my hon. Friend has made. I will ensure that Mr. George Ogden is made aware of his suggestions. I am

bound to tell my hon. Friend that in some respects this proposal would be a little premature because as things stand, under the Bill and existing legislation, the water authorities do not have control over all discharges to marine waters. I wish they had.
As we originally intended to bring the Bill before the House it would have contained those pollution clauses I have mentioned frequently in Committee. Unfortunately, because of the exigencies of parliamentary time we have had to reduce the scope of the Bill and to leave them out. I have given the undertaking that my right hon. and learned Friend expects to bring forward, if possible next session, an environmental protection Bill which will include these clauses and provide the new powers which my hon. Friend and the House generally wish to see. It would be difficult to require all the new regional water authorities to have a particular committee to deal with this problem when we have not yet given them the powers to do the job. But I will draw to the attention of the committee dealing with the management structure the points that have been made and it may well be that it will take these matters into consideration and will recommend the establishment of such committees.
The other point concerns estuaries. I at once accept, and the Government have accepted, the conclusions of the Royal Commission when it says that the problems of pollution in estuaries must be dealt with by one authority. We have sought to try to bring the estuaries under one authority wherever possible. We have not always succeeded. There are cases, including the Severn, the Humber and the Thames, where we have not achieved this purpose.
But I would advise the House not to insist that a joint committee should necessarily be set up in each case. I have some experience in this because, like the Royal Commission, I have visited most of our estuaries and I have been able in most cases to bring them together and to create joint committees. But I have also found—and I think it is the experience of the water industry—that in some cases it may be better, rather than establishing a joint committee, for one water authority to be asked to discharge the functions for the whole of the estuary on behalf of


another authority. Sometimes an agreement of this kind is effective and it works very well in a number of cases.

Mr. Reed: As I understand it, the Government have accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on this point. But the Royal Commission made it clear that when it talked about unified control of pollution in estuaries it was not just talking about discharges from drains and pollution that would fall under the control of the regional water authorities but all sources of pollution, thus concerning perhaps the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have accepted this integral approach for inland waters. How is it possible to maintain fragmentation in an estuary or in coastal waters?

Mr. Griffiths: No one is trying to maintain fragmentation. It is simply that in the Bill we do not deal with all the additional pollution aspects that I know many hon. Members would have liked to deal with. It is, perhaps unfortunately, only a machinery Bill.
It does not deal with these other matters, but I have given the assurance to the Committee—and I repeat it to my hon. Friend—that it is the Governments intention, in the course of our environmental protection legislation, to bring in the necessary additional powers to achieve my hon. Friend's purpose, including the bringing of piped discharges to estuaries and coastal waters under full control. This would involve the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with its special expertise in this field.
All that I can tell my hon. Friend is that I have listened carefully to what he said and that I will consider it. If we can go some way towards meeting him in another place we shall do so, but I must ask him to be a little patient, in the light of the fact that my right hon. Friend has undertaken that the environmental protection legislation, which we hope to bring in, will deal with this point.

Mr. Reed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said in this matter. I emphasise, however, that I was expressly concerned not with the measures to be adopted but with the type of organisation that would apply those measures.

That was the crux of my argument— that the structure of the organisation is wrong, in that the primary concern of the regional water authority will be with inland waters rather than with the need to tackle the problems of the coastal belt, and that there will inevitably be a tendency for it to devote all its priorities to efforts inland, with the clear danger that it will neglect its reponsibilities in the coastal areas.
Nevertheless, in view of what my hon. Friend said and in the hope that he will bear in mind my few additional comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

FISHERIES

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 20, line 42, leave out' consult any ' and insert' establish advisory committees of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 48 and 49.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: These amendments do not involve any change in principle. They seek to make it clear beyond doubt that it is mandatory that water authorities shall establish regional fisheries advisory committees, together with such local advisory committees as they consider necessary. The amendments leave it to the authorities to decide how each such committee shall be composed in order to represent fisheries in the area.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 20, line 43, after 'area', insert 'and consult them'.

No. 49, in page 21, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
'(2) The duty to establish advisory committees imposed by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above is a duty to establish a regional advisory committee for the whole of the area mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection and such local advisory committees as the water authority consider necessary to represent the interests referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection in different parts of that area'.—[Mr. Gibson-Walt.]

Clause 19

RECREATION

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 23, line 12, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
'(6) Without prejudice to paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act, the Welsh Authority may acquire by agreement, or be authorised by the Secretary to State to acquire compulsorily, any right to use water in Wales and any estate or interest in, or right over, land in Wales which is associated with water for the purpose of using the water or land for the purposes of recreation; and the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 shall apply to any compulsory acquisition under this subsection as if—

(a) the water authority were a local authority;
(b) this subsection had been in force immediately before the commencement of that Act; and
(c) any reference in that Act to land included a reference to any such estate, interest or right.

(7) A compulsory purchase order under subsection (6) above may provide for the acquisition of rights, estates or interests by creating them as well as for the acquisition of rights, estates and interests already in existence, and regulations under section 66(6) of the Water Resources Act 1963 may make the like provision in relation to the acquisition of rights, estates and interests under this section by creating them as they may in relation to the acquisition of rights and interests under that Act by creating them'.


At least there is one respect in which the amendment cannot be criticised. It is the traditional Government criticism of Opposition amendments that the drafting is defective, but that cannot be said here, because the amendment is, verbatim, in the terms of the original Bill, before it went into Committee. The amendment seeks to restore the Bill to its pristine state, in particular in relation to this clause and the reserve compulsory powers proposed by the Government for the Welsh water authority.
If we are to have a Welsh water recreation plan which is to be reasonably comprehensive there will be circumstances in which the Welsh authority will propose to acquire, for the purposes of recreation, land or water which is not under its control or under the control of the Severn-Trent authority. Under most circumstances the interest in this land or water will be acquired by agreement, but situations may occasionally arise when it will be necessary for the Welsh water authority

to seek to acquire land but when consent for such acquisition is unreasonably withheld. In such circumstances, we feel that reserve powers of the kind that we propose in the amendment are necessary, essentially as a fall-back arrangement in cases where consent to the acquisition of land to make possible the development of a water recreational plan in Wales is unreasonably withheld. However, in order to ensure that the rights of individuals are safeguarded, any such compulsory acquisition will be subject to the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946.
That is the statement of our case. However, it is not in our terms. What I have said to the House repeats almost verbatim the notes on Clause 19 given to us by the Government at the beginning of the Committee proceedings. Those are not my terms. Those are the words used by the Minister of State and by the Secretary of State in recommending to the House the amendment which I have now proposed.
We need a water recreational plan, and it should be comprehensive. There may be occasions when the unreasonable withholding of consent to the acquisition of land would thwart the development of a comprehensive plan for water recreation, and there should be reserve powers to deal with such a situation.
What will happen now that the Government have buckled under certain pressures and withdrawn the reserve compulsory powers which were available under the full and detailed control of the acquisition of land legislation? The development of a comprehensive water recreational plan could be thwarted in one area or another by the unreasonable decision or bloody mindedness of one or two landlords not to agree to the voluntary acquisition of land. Water recreation proposals put up by the Welsh authority could be thwarted by the unreasonable withholding of permission to transfer the ownership of land to the authority. What will happen in such cases now that the Minister has buckled down to pressures and withdrawn the reserve powers of compulsory acquisition from the Bill?
Initially there was some mystery about why the Minister of State had decided to withdraw the powers of compulsory


acquisition. I made accusations at the time and I shall repeat them now because I think that they are true. The Minister was nobbled by a variety of pressure groups. I did not realise then what the pressure groups included, or what operation or campaign was being conducted, not so much at an all-Welsh level as at a local level, until I saw an extract from the Radnor and Brecon county weekly newspaper.
I propose to read the extract because it provides one reason why the Minister wished to be so accommodating and withdraw the reserve powers as set out in the original Bill. According to the story in the weekly newspaper of Saturday, 28th April, a Mr. Lloyd Harvard Davies said that he raised the issue when he declared that fanners and organisations such as angling clubs were rigidly opposed to the compulsory land purchase plan which he claimed was nothing more than a form of land nationalisation.
The report says:
Acknowledging Mr. Harvard Davies's concern on the issue, Mr. Gibson-Watt said that the Government had been impressed by the weight of opposition to the clause.
In heavy black type the story continues:
The Minister said he was grateful for Mr. Harvard Davies's interest in the matter and for being one of the first to raise the issue with the Welsh Office.
Mr. Harvard Davies is then quoted as saying:
If nothing else this is a victory for common sense and is a lesson in democracy, proving that even a good Government can change its mind ".
Who is Mr. Lloyd Harvard Davies? He just happens to be prospective Conservative candidate for Brecon and Radnor. We have witnessed a rather sordid local party political manoeuvre carried out by the Minister of State in conjunction with a Conservative candidate to the sacrifice of Welsh interests—the interests of Welsh angling and the plan for comprehensive water recreation—and of the need in certain circumstances to have reserve compulsory powers to acquire where the landlord might unreasonably withhold the land. The vital national involvement is given away to a petty party political manoeuvre in Brecon and Radnor by the Minister of State and a prospective Conservative candidate.

That is what has been going on in the last couple of months.
Mr. Lloyd Harvard Davies is quoted as saying that angling clubs were rigidly opposed to these powers. Hon. Members will have seen Monday's report in the Western Mail in which the fears and worries of the Welsh Anglers Association were expressed. If any individual angling club opposed the original proposals, then the Welsh Angling Association and the Welsh Fly Fishermen's Society were in favour.
I explained some of these worries and fears in Llandrindod Wells on Monday but the hon. Gentleman is not willing to listen. That he is, however, willing to carry out a manoeuvre on a local basis with his neighbours in Brecon and Radnor rather than heed the national interest in water resources is not our fault, but the House should realise what is behind this operation. According to the Western Mail report Welsh anglers were in danger of losing fishing rights put up for sale on the open market because they could not compete with prices offered by exclusive clubs, and they were losing water by this means because they could not compete with clubs. The report told of one three-quarter mile stretch of fishing sold for £45,000. These are the problems facing democratic angling associations in Wales.
As I said in Committee, fishing is a vital and intrinsic part of most of the tourist industry in Wales. Yet some of the best fishing rights in parts of Wales have been carved up, not in the interests of the local communities or in the general interest but for the benefit of small exclusive minorities which are buying stretches of river at very high prices for their own small group interests. The Minister of State is prepared to sacrifice the general Welsh interest. He is not willing to take even the modest reserve powers orginally proposed in the Bill to ensure at least access to the waters.
I quote the example of the Lower Usk estuary, where a local farmer who did not own the fishing rights, which were Crown rights, put up for sale the acquisition of footpaths to the banks of the estuary for £20,000. What will happen if, here, there and everywhere, in the development of Welsh water recreational


facilities, individual landlords unreasonably withhold access or the acquisition of land, thus thwarting the comprehensive development and use of water recreation?
That is the case the Minister must answer. We want no more squalid party political manoeuvring but genuine answers to problems. Why is he willing to listen to the prospective parliamentary candidate for Brecon and Radnor and one or two angling clubs but not willing to listen to the Welsh Angling Society, the Welsh Fly Fishermen's Society and the Dee and Clwyd River Authority— which, incidentally, supported the original provisions?
The Minister has caved in under the pressures to which he has been subjected. Why has the Minister not bothered to go to the Welsh people who have objected, to the National Farmers' Union and to other organisations and explain that these measures were not just another form of land nationalisation, as the prospective parliamentary candidate for Brecon and Radnor said?
Did he disabuse the candidate or the NUF of that impression? Did he explain the modest powers of the original subsection (6)? Did he try to allay the fears and scaremongering about the wholesale acquisition of land and fishing rights? I do not think he did. He was only too happy to sit back and allow the scaremongering to continue and to buckle under the pressure from small exclusive groups.
Whatever the Minister of State says now, his behaviour has cast a reflection on himself and his Department. Under these pressures he has been willing to sacrifice the general interests to a particular interest.
I hope that even at this late stage he will reconsider the matter and at least include the powers which he thought necessary when the Bill started out. Welsh rivers should be in the ownership of angling associations and available to tourists. They should be part and parcel of the responsibility of the new Welsh River Authority. The Minister may not want to go that far, but I hope he will go as far as saying that where landlords unreasonably withhold the acquisition of land and thereby thwart the development of recreational facilities there must be a

modest last reserve power of acquisition of land. By accepting the amendment he will be doing that, and it is nothing more than was contained in the original Bill.

Mr. Alec Jones: I support the amendment, but my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) is asking for the impossible when he says that the Minister must provide genuine answers to questions. He is asking in vain, as those of us who have had experience of dealing with the Minister earlier today have cause to appreciate.
One reason why issues like this are taken at this ridiculously late hour when so few people are present is that it enables the Government to get away with murder. It is important to realise that all that we are asking for is that the original Government proposals should be restored. It is unbelievable that the Government should have put such proposals into the Bill in its original form without having considered seriously their full implications.
When the proposals which we are now seeking to be restored were put into the Bill in the beginning, they were put in by the Government because they believed that they were necessary for the well-being of the authorities in Wales. Of course, it is quite reasonable that even this Government should change their mind. They have changed their mind on so many occasions that we have become more accustomed to them changing their mind than sticking to their policies.

Mr. Winterton: Very adaptable.

Mr. Jones: Very adaptable and very persuasive. I accept the point. But if the Government are prepared to change their mind, the people are entitled to know why they have changed their mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil mentioned his suspicions, which do the Government no credit. Not only have my hon. Friend and I our suspicions, but so have many other hon. Members. There is considerable suspicion throughout Wales about why the Minister of State changed his mind. If he wishes to retain any sense of integrity in this matter he must speak out now and say exactly why the Government have changed their mind on this important aspect.
We are entitled to know and have placed on record the full reasons for the change of mind because of the deep concern which has been felt and is being expressed throughout Wales.
My hon. Friend referred to a county weekly newspaper. A good many hon. Members were sent copies of that newspaper because we were startled to find what the newspaper contained. We found that the apparent reason for the Government's change of mind was, first, the intervention of the prospective Conservative candidate for Brecon and Radnorshire, and, secondly, because his intervention was supported by authorities such as the Country Landowners' Association. Of course, neither the prospective Conservative candidate for Brecon and Radnorshire nor the Country Landowners' Association can be held to be the voices of Wales on this matter. There are many more people and organisations in Wales which should be considered before them.
The newspaper article suggests that the Minister of State indicated in a letter that the Government had been impressed by the weight of the opposition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stand at the Dispatch Box and spell out the long list of that tremendous weight of opposition. When he measures its weight he will find that it is lightweight compared with the majority of people in Wales.
My hon. Friend referred to the suggestion made by the unfortunate and unlucky prospective Conservative candidate that it was a victory for common sense and democracy. Let us consider that. Is it a victory for democracy when the hon. Gentleman has buckled under the pressure put up by one prospective Conservative candidate and the Country Landowners' Association? What a wonderful example that is of the present Government. If that is a victory for democracy, I hope that he will shout the message loud and clear from the Dispatch Box.
I doubt whether the true democratic organisations in Wales will support him in his change of mind. The majority of people in Wales who are interested in the use of water for recreational purposes, and the Welsh authorities, should

be allowed the reserve power to purchase compulsorily land which is necessary for recreational and other purposes. I do not suggest that anyone would want to purchase land in a higgledy-piggledy manner. I merely suggest that they should have the power to purchase the land which they consider necessary. That is the point of the safeguards which my hon. Friend mentioned in his opening remarks. Unless the Minister of State is able to satisfy the House on the suspicions which we harbour about the Government's change of mind, then the people of Wales will be entitled to draw the conclusion that once again this is an example of a sell-out by the Tory Government to vested interests.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: This part of Clause 19 was thoroughly debated in Committee. The speech by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) was a total replica of what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee.

Mr. Rowlands: So is the clause.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: That may be so, but I am saying that there was nothing new in the hon. Gentleman's speech. It was a replay of the gramophone record. It was repetitive, long and—to use the hon. Gentleman's own adjective—squalid.
I gave in Committee a detailed answer to the Opposition's amendment on this part of the Bill. I do not intend tonight to weary the House with it a second time, nor will I repeat the list of those who have written against the sentiments expressed tonight by the Opposition— except to say this: both the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) were selective in the organisations which they said were against this compulsory purchase. Some of the organisations which were strongly against it and which made their views known to us in the Welsh Office were as follows: the Angling Association of Llangollen, the Joint Committee of the National Anglers Council, the National Federation of Anglers, the National Federation of Sea Anglers and the Salmon and Trout Association and also the United Usk Fishermen's Association—

Mr. Spearing: Mr. Spearing rose—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: This is essentially a Welsh amendment, and I shall be grateful if the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) will allow me to continue.

Mr. Spearing: Mr. Spearing rose—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I do not want to detain the House, but if the hon. Gentleman insists I will give way to him.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister will recall that in Committee, as reported in column 909, I asked him a question to which he made no reply. My question then was whether the Minister or his colleagues sent to the organisations which he has just mentioned the notes on clauses setting out in precise terms the reasons for these clauses. He did not answer that point in Committee. Will he now say whether that was done to enable the organisations to which he has referred to be aware of the reasons for this compulsory purchase provision?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I regret that I did not answer the point made by the hon. Member for Acton—one of the many points he put in Committee. The answer is "No". One does not send to individuals the same sort of notes on clauses as one sends to hon. Members on both sides of a Committee. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that very well.

Mr. Spearing: No.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech in my own way. I am giving him an answer to his question.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil also complained that I had answered one of the letters written to me at the Welsh Office. I thought it a little small-minded of the hon. Gentleman to complain just because the person to whom I wrote happened to be a Conservative candidate and to suggest that in some way this was undemocratic. That was a pretty low-level sort of argument for the hon. Gentleman to deploy. If the Opposition think that the angling associations are in favour of the sentiments expressed by the Labour Opposition in favour of compulsory purchase of water and the land that goes with it, they are living in cloud-cuckoo land. I advise the House

to reject the amendment, as it was rejected in Committee.

Mr. Rowlands: That was a disgraceful and unworthy reply. The Minister did not begin to answer some of the points that have been made. Indeed, he did not even bother to tell us what he proposed to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) rightly said that the Minister's manner when replying to debates on Welsh matters is a disgrace. However, I should like to challenge the hon. Gentleman on one point. What does he propose to do in cases where landlords unreasonably withhold the acquisition of land from the water authority and thereby thwart one aspect of the water recreational plan? That is the terminology that the Government used in preparing their justification for the proposals in the original Bill. What alternative will there be to the case where a landlord unreasonably withholds the acquisition of land from the Welsh Water Authority?
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) may not be a Welsh Member, but he put a pertinent question which I also posed. The Minister did not give my hon. Friend an answer. He said that he did not send notes on clauses to people other than hon. Members. Did he write to the prospective Conservative candidate explaining the limited reserve nature of these proposals? Did he try to disabuse him of the view that this was land nationalisation? I presume that the Government would not be party to any proposal for widespread land nationalisation. The Minister may not have sent out these cautious notes on clauses, but he might have called these people together and said, "This is what we are trying to do. This is why we are asking for this reserve power. We do not intend to take over land wholesale. We intend only to hold this as a reserve power."
We have sat here until nearly 10 minutes past one to debate this issue. We deserve rather better treatment than we have had from the Minister in replying to the debate. Surely he has a duty to the House to answer at least the specific question: what powers will the water authority have in cases where landlords unreasonably withhold permission for the sale of land and thereby thwart an aspect


of the water recreational plan for Wales? That was why the provisions were in the original Bill. They have now been removed. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is to happen if that situation arises?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman asked me the specific question: what powers will the water authority have? Clearly it will not have any compulsory powers.
Secondly, he asked whether I called together those people who objected to what was in the Bill. The number of organisions and individuals who wrote to the Welsh Office was such that that would have been beyond the realms of possibility.

Mr. Alec Jones: How many?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: There was a large number of organisations.
Since the Committee stage, in which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) had pretty good coverage in the local and national newspapers in Wales, only one individual has written to the Welsh Office saying that he favoured the compulsory purchase powers within the Bill—and he came not from Wales but from Essex.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 21

WATER SPACE AMENITY COMMISSION

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 24, line 33, leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
'(c) one shall be appointed after consultation with the Sports Council or some other organisation appearing to him to be concerned with the encouragement of sport and recreation and prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by him.'.
The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that the body to be consulted is the Sports Council. In Committee I explained that we were using a circumlocution. I do not think that is necessary. We are now able to state firmly and clearly that we mean that the Sports Council shall be consulted.

Mr. Denis Howell: This amendment was put down after representations from our side in Committee and it would be

churlish of me not to express appreciation to the Under-Secretary for at least meeting our point in part. We would rather the Sports Council had the right to nominate directly. We know, however, that the hon. Gentleman will not concede this anywhere else, so we cannot expect it here, and to the extent that the amendment meets our point we express our appreciation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 59 in page 24, line 42, after 'or', insert:
'in the enhancement and preservation of '.— [Mr. Eldon Griffiths.M]

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 169, in page 25, line 8, leave out 'may be appropriate' and insert:
'the Secretary of State considers appropriate and shall defray any expenditure incurred by the Commission with the approval of the Secretary of State in the discharge of their functions'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this we can take Amendment No. 60, in page 25, line 7, leave out 'Council' and insert 'Secretary of State'.

Mr. Griffiths: The purpose of Amendment No. 169 is to allow the Secretary of State to decide on the offices and accommodation to be provided for the Water Space Amenity Commission. It goes on to make clear that the commission can incur expenditure in carrying out its functions and it enables the Secretary of State, rather than the National Water Council, to be responsible for expenditure incurred by the commission although it will be defrayed by the council.
Hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember our debate on the matter. It is important that the council should not be in a position to deprive the Water Space Amenity Commission of adequate space and staff to carry out its functions. I said that I thought it right to give the Secretary of State the power and duty to see that it carries out its functions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 25, line 12, at end insert:
'(7) Paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect with respect to annual reports of the Commission'.


I am in the difficulty that I do not know the number of the amendment. It gives effect to paragraph 38 of Schedule 3.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

PERIODICAL REVIEWS, PLANS AND PROGRAMMES

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 25, line 14, after '1974', insert:
'in consultation with any water authority or authorities for an area or areas adjacent to that of the first-mentioned authority'.—[Mr. Arthur Jones.]

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 26, line 31, after 'shall', insert:
'(a) consult every local authority whose area is wholly or partly included in the area of the water authority; and
(b)'.
This is to fulfil an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in Committee on 10th April, as reported at column 959, in response to an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones). It widens the scope of Clause 22(7).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

DUTIES OF STATUTORY WATER UNDERTAKERS AND COUNCIL TO THIER STAFF

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 27, line 41, after 'authority', insert:
'and all other statutory water undertakers'.
This also fulfils an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in response to an Amendment moved by our hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS RELATING TO FINANCE

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 28, line 16, after

'revenue', insert 'including grants in aid'.
I shall be brief with this amendment, because of the hour, but it raises the important question of the financial provisions of the new regional water authorities and whether it is the intention of the Government in future to provide grants in aid to such authorities, as happens at present with local authorities particularly in respect of sewerage functions.
1.15 a.m.
In Committee our attention was alerted to the fact that no firm assurance was given by the Government that grants in aid would continue to the regional water authorities on anything like the present scale of grants to local authorities. Consequently, as the clause gives an express duty under subsection (1) that every water authority shall so
discharge their functions as to secure that, taking one year with another, their revenue is not less than sufficient to meet their total outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account",
will the Government include in those figures to local authorities grants in aid which are being included now?
What are the Government's intentions concerning assistance to regional water authorities? Those authorities will be extremely concerned about this. It could be a severe burden on them if all Government grants, particularly with regard to their sewerage functions, were taken away or severely reduced, so that each water authority had to be self-supporting in the way that subsection (1) suggests.
What we seek is an assurance from the Government that grants in aid will continue. If they are to continue, there is no harm in adding the words "including grants in aid" after "revenue" in line 16.

Mr. Spearing: I shall be very brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and the Minister have been on their feet in Committee or in the House for some 15 hours. This sort of procedure is not necessarily conducive to efficient legislation.
In Committee the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) and I elicited the fact that about £100 million worth of grants from the


Exchequer are made under the rate support grant in respect of sewerage, and because that will no longer come as of right under the Bill it seemed that there was a likelihood that it would be cut off at a fairly early opportunity. We know from what the Minister has said and from the provisions in Schedule 3 that there is power for the Exchequer to make grants, but it is not in the main part of the Bill and the Minister has said that it will be transitional. He should be given full opportunity to explain exactly what will happen.
My intervention on a Welsh matter concerned not Welsh affairs but Government intentions. We have not had a White Paper, and the notes on clauses were apparently not widely circulated.
Is the Government's intention very clear? The Daily Telegraph, reporting on the Committee proceedings, said on 14th April that there would be £100 million extra on the bill for sewerage, to be paid not by the regional water authorities as my hon. Friend suggested—they would not have to carry the burden in the end —but by the people who pay the new combined rate to the authorities.
In an earlier debate today the Minister tended to indicate that £100 million, or the balance from whatever grants were paid, or at the end of the transitional period, would be given to the local authorities in respect of rate support grant for other services and, therefore, that local authority rates would be diminished by, apparently, an equal amount. He did not make that crystal clear, but I think that was what he said. I hope he will give some clarification of that earlier speech because, if what he said is correct, it is a question of one pocket or the other, but, knowing Exchequers and knowing the present Government, it is unlikely that the amount of aid in terms of general grant will be increased by £100 million.
According to the White Paper of the autumn of 1970, here is an admirable way of reviewing what should be paid for out of central taxation by the Exchequer and what should be paid for entirely by the person receiving the service. If the £100 million were paid in respect of extra and additional rate support grant, the Government would be

going outside their philosophy which they have advanced publicly. I should be glad to hear whether that is the case, and I hope that the Minister will make the position clear.

Mr. Graham Page: As I understand it, the effect of the amendment would be to enable water authorities to take into account in drawing up their accounts any grants in aid that they may receive as part of the revenue in meeting their obligations under Clause 25(1), their obligation being to break even over a certain number of years. If there are grants in aid, they may take them into account and bring them into the accounts. There are certain specific grants under the Bill, but not the type of grant to which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) referred.
The amendment seeks to place the reorganised water services on a permanently subsidised basis to keep the charges down. In Committee I stated the Government's policy quite firmly in the context of the water authorities' recreation and navigation charges. That was on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing). On that occasion I said:
I understand the intention of the amendment, to put it bluntly, to be to obstruct any attempts to make recreational and navigational facilities on water authority waterways self-financing. This would be against the principle of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D,
That principle applies to other uses of water.
I have stated as a matter of principle that the revenues to enable the new authorities to discharge their main functions should come from charges for the services that they provide, apart from Exchequer grants for specific purposes. Clause 26(4) obliges the water authorities to ensure that charges reflect the costs of providing water services. There is clearly written into the Bill the obligation that they will not in future be able to rely on general grants. In future we shall look to charges for the water supplied or for the sewerage service provided to meet the costs of the service.
The purpose in proposing full reliance on charges for water services is to make plain the real cost of these services and so enable rational decisions to be made


in the use of resources for their development. I had not realised that there was any misconception here. It is clearly written into the Bill that we shall rely in future on charges and not on grants out of taxation, and that is the principle which we must maintain.
There will be a transition period, of course. We shall be faced with a similar situation as obtained on revaluation, when we found that certain individuals were suffering and decided that a transition period would be desirable, however fair and just the eventual outcome. I dare say we shall have to have a transition period in the case of water reorganisation, but the principle behind the Bill is that the consumer should pay for both the services and the goods that he receives.
When one compares industrial and commercial consumption with domestic consumption, I do not think that the domestic user will come off too badly. It may mean that he is much better off than being charged on a rateable value basis for his water consumption. It may be that industry will have to pay a larger burden for sewerage and water than in the past, and to that extent the domestic consumer may benefit.

Mr. Denis Howell: That was a most disturbing reply. The Government are proposing to save about £100 million a year and this charge is to be passed on to the consumer. It has not been clear hitherto that this was the kind of saving the Government envisaged and that this was the additional charge that the Bill would impose upon water consumers.
I cannot for the life of me understand why, if Governments of all persuasions have hitherto thought it right to make adequate provision in the rate support grant in order to grant-aid essential services like sewerage, that principle is to be breached and thrown overboard. It is an attempt to achieve a saving by stealth and it is a typical Treasury type of manoeuvre that one can imagine going on in the corridors of power by which the Treasury recognises a good opportunity to make a saving of up to £100 million. It plans to get the Minister to say that the great justification for it is that everything will be clear, that realistic decisions can be taken on their merits and that the consumer shall pay.
If the Minister was logical in his argument, that would be the end of all rate support grants for all purposes, because all rate support grants are in recognition of the fact that in the provision of essential services such as this there has to be a partnership between central and local government money. For the first time ever, or at least for the first time in many years, this principle is to be breached in the important matter of water, sewerage and drainage.
It is a sad business and I imagine that the local authorities are not fully cognisant of the fact. If they had been fully aware of the effect of a Bill to remove £100 million of Government aid or subsidy from the consumer in this important sector, I am sure they would have been writing to us with a high degree of indignation. However, they have not done so. We must therefore press the claims of the consumer at this late hour, although we obviously shall not force the issue to a Division because I have given undertakings not to do so. Looking around the Chamber I see that we would have a better chance of winning a Division than at any time during the evening.
Had we been dealing with this at a more reasonable hour, we should have registered our strong sense of indignation at the saving of this amount of money by stealth. This is a grave departure on a matter of vital principle in the responsibility of the central Government to help to finance local government matters. I cannot force a Division and I therefore content myself with an indignant and righteous expression of the views of the Opposition on this matter.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 25

GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS RELATING TO FINANCE

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No 65, in page 28, line 19 after 'Council', insert 'by order'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendment No. 67.

Mr. Page: Even at this late hour I must say a few words about the amendment. It is intended to go some way towards meeting amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) in Committee. The first amendment is identical to the one moved by my hon. Friend. It requires that any directions by the Secretary of State imposing financial obligations on regional water authorities are to be given by order.
The second amendment goes a little more than halfway towards my hon. Friend's second amendment. He would have preferred the order to be subject to affirmative resolution whether it sets a financial objective in terms of the return on the value of net assets under Clause 25(2)(a) or in some other terms under subsection (2(). Amendment No. 67 opts for the negative resolution procedure for orders under paragraph (a) and accepts the affirmative procedure for those under paragraph (b). We have gone a long way to meet the points my hon. Friend raised. I am grateful to him for raising them in Committee and for enabling me to look at them again. I hope that the House will accept the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 28, line 33, at end insert:
'(2A) An order made by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(2B) An order shall not be made by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 26

WATER CHARGES

Mr. Simeons: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 29, line 23, leave out 'three' and insert 'five'.
There is at present a variety of charges and a variety of systems of charges. The object of the amendment is to give a longer transitional period than is at present envisaged.

Mr. Graham Page: I recommend the House to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Orders of the Day — OPERATION EYESORE

1.34 a.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Wherever there has been a history of heavy and now declining industry, the scars are obvious—dereliction, rubbish dumps, grimy buildings and grey, dismal industrial landscapes. To remove the disfigurement caused by the Industrial Revolution requires sustained and continuous attack organised by the central Government. On 7th February last year, against a backcloth of 1 million unemployed, the Government introduced an environmental assistance scheme called Operation Eyesore. It offered up to 75 per cent. Government contribution in intermediate areas and up to 85 per cent. in development areas to the cost of projects to clean up eyesores. It was and is a first-class scheme. However, the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that it was to end on 30th June this year.
The Government were therefore planning, after a brief period of 17 months, abruptly to abandon the attack on eyesores in Britain. So brief a time-span for such a target shows that the Government saw the scheme chiefly as a method of temporarily reducing the embarrassingly large numbers of unemployed men. This the scheme has certainly done. The effect on unemployment has been dramatic. One stone-cleaning firm in Bradford has already expanded from employing six men to 140 since the scheme's inception. These men are largely unskilled and are willing to work hard. Unskilled men are normally the most difficult to place in employment.
Operation Eyesore has been a substantial factor in reducing the unemployment


figures in the past year. Nearly all the money spent on Operation Eyesore has been spent on wages. If this scheme is ended on 30th June, literally thousands of men in Britain will be thrown on to the dole queue in July. If we want to see the male unemployment figures rise, we have only to stop this scheme.
These men and their families are now living uneasily, in doubt and insecurity, awaiting the long-delayed decision on the future of the scheme. Tonight is the fourth occasion on which I have pressed from these benches for the scheme to be extended. These men are entitled to know quickly what their future is to be.
The principle of the scheme was greatly welcome to those who care about the quality of life. The initial Press notice announcing the scheme correctly declared that local eyesores were a source of irritation to the people living with them and off-putting to others, including new industry considering whether to come to the area. That is certainly true. It is not possible to sell goods without a clean shop window.
Whitehall Departments are reluctant to disperse to areas of dust and grime. Unfortunately the scheme got off to a slow start almost everywhere except the North West. By 31st January this year, 12 months after the scheme began, the total amount of claims settled in England and Wales was only £601,000, although by then £27 million worth of projects had been approved. The scheme was badly publicised. The initial letter to local authorities from the Department of the Environment made no mention of improving buildings, but only of improving land. One had to dig deeply into the accompanying notes to discover that the scheme included the improvement of buildings and river and canal beds and also the planting of trees.
Many of the local authorities took no steps whatever to bring the scheme to the attention of owners of dirty buildings in their area. Nor did the Department advise them to do so. In Bradford some owners of what might be called dark satanic mills learned very late, and almost accidentally, of the scheme. One managing director told me last week that he had learned of the scheme only a month before.
By the end of December 1972 after 11 months of operation, while projects in the North West totalled £12 million, in each of Wales, Northern England and the Yorkshire and Humberside Region the value of schemes approved was just over one-third of that amount. Within each reason some local authorities had seized their opportunities more than others had done. In Yorkshire, Halifax stands out. The transformation of Halifax and the changes at Shipley have put new heart into their citizens. The ancient bridges of York now glean anew and one prominent Bradfordian described the effect of the cleaning-up in parts of Bradford as unbelievable. There could be no higher praise. More could have been done and much still desperately needs to be done.
Operation Eyesore has been described as potentially the most important environmental breakthrough in living memory and a key factor in the economic development of the regions, but the planning officer of Monmouthshire has said that it takes a year to gear up for this kind of operation. The scheme has now developed rhythm and swing, and I hope that it is not to be crashed to a jarring stop. Indeed, by the end of this March —more than three months before the scheme was due to expire—some local authorities, including Huddersfield and Bradford, shut up shop in terms of accepting new projects, for fear—not always justified—that they might not be completed by 30th June. Happily other local authorities, sensibly using the heavy penalty clauses in their contracts to secure completion by the deadline, are still accepting new projects.
It is sad that many local authorities failed to publicise the fact that the closedown was to be on 30th June and also failed to inform owners of buildings who were considering a face-lift for the buildings that they intended to stop accepting projects so prematurely. A Huddersfield company chairman wrote to me this week complaining that he had no idea that the close-down on acceptances was to occur months ahead of the official close-down.
For all these reasons, the effective life of Operation Eyesore in many local authority areas has been less than 12 months. But the need is so great, and the appetite to use the scheme so keen and


hungry, that schemes in the United Kingdom worth about £40 million have been approved. The irony is that the Government have done far more good than they ever intended, since they have spent five times as much on the scheme as they expected.
To call a halt now would be national folly. The money has been well spent. Nothing is more depressing than living in an atmosphere of dirt and ugliness. This is an opportunity to remove the scars of centuries from the face of industrial Britain. I appreciate that the Department of the Environment has to recoup somewhere its remarkable gift of £15 million to the building societies, but it is vital, on common sense, employment, economic and amenity grounds, to extend the deadline for this valuable scheme. If resources are short, I would rather the Minister tightened up the criterion for accepting projects, or even reduced the percentage of Government grant, than stop the scheme entirely.
I hope that the Minister tonight will at last tell us the decision of the Government, because we are now in the penultimate month of the ending of the scheme. If he still cannot tell us the decision of the Government will he at least tell us definitely when the Government will announce their decision?

1.44 a.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: This has been a useful debate. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) for his kind words of tribute to the work of Her Majesty's Government on this issue. He said that the Government had done far more good than they had expected. If that can be carried through in other fields we shall all be very happy.
The hon. Member said that the main purpose of Operation Eyesore was to reduce unemployment particularly in the regions, but that was only a marginal side benefit of the scheme. Its main purpose was environmental, in terms of improving the appearance and amenities of areas which had been so neglected in the past. The hon. Member said that the residue of the Industrial Revolution required a sustained and continuous attack from the central Government if

it was to be cleared and tackled properly. I do not remember any such sustained and continuous attack from the previous administration when in office from 1964 to 1970. Indeed, one of the best things that the present Government have done is to tackle the environmental dereliction and eyesores in the regions, and with my hon. Friends I unashamedly take credit for it.
The hon. Gentleman said that the effect of unemployment in Bradford in particular had been dramatic since the institution of Operation Eyesore, and he then went on to adduce only one statistic to reinforce his argument. He quoted the case of a stone-cleaning firm in Bradford whose work force increased from six to 140 in the period, but that is only one example.
The hon. Gentleman said the scheme was a substantial factor in reducing unemployment over the past year. In my view the main factor in Bradford has been the remarkable turn-round in the fortunes of our main industry, the wool textile trade. This has been dramatic and has been a most influential factor in reducing unemployment in the area. The second factor is the general upturn in the economy as a whole, particularly in engineering and the service industries, and also the effect of the Industry Act which has worked through the economy and has helped to bring new industry and expansion to the region.
The hon. Gentleman was a Cassandra and prophet of doom and did the cause of the city and his constituents no good by saying that thousands of men would be thrown on to the dole queue in July if the scheme was terminated at the end of June as is intended. That view is unrealistic. The April figures issued by the Bradford employment exchange are very interesting. The manager of the employment exchange reports a high rate of activity in the construction industry which
has created a shortage of skilled building trade workers and vacancies for scaffolders, bricklayers and joiners in particular are numerous.
The construction industry in Bradford is booming and Operation Eyesore is not the only factor in reducing unemployment in that industry. A far more important factor on the employment side


is to be found in the general improvement areas which are radically transforming whole districts on that side of the city.
On general improvement areas, Bradford is beaten only by the London borough of Haringey and Birmingham City Council in its record for these schemes. In addition, housing improvement grants have been a valuable stimulus to householders and others who are keen to improve their properties, if local authorities did nothing to publicise the scheme, I recall that over the past year we have laboured under a Socialist administration in the town hall in Bradford, and that does no credit to the hon. Gentleman's argument.
I recognise the immense benefits which Operation Eyesore, along with the many other environmental schemes that we have had, has brought to the Bradford region and to the wool textile district as a whole, but it must be considered in context and we must keep it in proportion.
The Department has many calls upon its resources, and recently an extra £15 million has been provided to alleviate the burden of high interest rates on people who are buying their properties with mortgages. This is a most important social subsidy and I see it as such. In these circumstances, I recognise the constraints that are placed on the Department's budget.
I believe that Operation Eyesore costs just over £30 million a year—or at least it did last year—and I am suggesting to my right hon. Friend the Minister that if he can extend it at all he should not go so far as to extend it for a full year as suggested in an Early Day Motion, but perhaps a more reasonable compromise might be found which might be acceptable to the Department by extending it for an extra six months to the end of 1973. That would halve the extra burden and it might be more acceptable, but it is only a suggestion.
What we in Bradford are thankful for is the great attention that we have received from the Government for industrial expansion and environmental schemes as a whole. Operation Eyesore has done much to clear up the image of the city not only for newcomers and

people who want to set up new industries but also for those who live there. This has been a great achievement and I do not think that we should carp. We should give credit where credit is due, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for all he has done.

1.50 a.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): "Operation Eyesore" was the highly descriptive name given to the rather dull phrase "Special Environmental Assistance Scheme", which was introduced in February 1972 as a short-term measure to improve the appearance of neglected and unsightly land in assisted areas, to remove local eyesores and to create additional jobs in those areas. As the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) said, it has been called a most important environmental breakthrough.
Under the scheme, which applies only in the assisted area, grants are payable to the local authorities at the rate of 85 per cent. in the development and special development areas and 75 per cent. in the intermediate and derelict land clearance areas. It was deliberately planned as a short-term measure to encourage local authorities in the assisted areas to get moving quickly and assist in reducing unemployment until the Government's longer-term economic measures began to take effect. Therefore, it was announced that it would last only until 30th June.
The response from local authorities has been very gratifying indeed. This refutes the claim by the hon. Gentleman that the scheme was badly publicised. It was taken up by the great majority of local authorities very quickly. It was difficult for us to estimate at the outset how widely it would be taken up. The earlier expenditure estimate of £5 million to £10 million soon proved wholly wrong and wide of the mark.
Up to the end of March, nearly 14,000 individual projects had been approved in England, to a total estimated value of £32 million. This involved local authorities in a great deal of preparatory work carried out against a tight timetable, and I express my great appreciation of the work done by local authorities and others in connection with the scheme.
The projects carried out under the scheme have been mainly ones of visual improvement and have included, as the hon. Gentleman said, things like the tidying-up of neglected sites, the cleaning of buildings, the removal of rubbish from rivers and canals, the tidying-up of tow-paths and the planting of trees to screen unattractive areas. The results of this massive facelift are there for all to see.
The scheme has enabled transformations to be made in the appearance of many of our northern cities. It is true perhaps that the North West was quicker to take advantage of it than was the North East, or even the Midlands. Whether there was any reason for the North West's getting quicker off the mark, I do not know. Great advantage has certainly been taken of the scheme there, but not to the exclusion of the other areas of the North. York was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and there are many areas where the scheme has proved most beneficial. But most of the projects have been relatively small. The average cost is about £2,300, but their cumulative effect has been very large.
The scheme has been by no means confined to large cities. Of the 540 eligible local authorities in the assisted areas, about 450, or nearly 85 per cent., are participating, so the benefits have been applied over a very wide area. The cleaner environment which the scheme has helped to create not only boosts local morale but also makes the areas more attractive to industrialists to set up new enterprises in these towns.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, East stressed, in addition to the undoubted immediate visual effects there have been substantial direct employment benefits. The expenditure of £32 million is bound to have provided a large number of jobs which would not have been provided otherwise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) said, however, the hon. Member for Bradford, East is exaggerating when he says that a great number of men will be thrown out of employment if we cease this operation. The improvement in the economy and in the industry of Bradford is obvious over the past months, and I cannot imagine that the cessation of the schemes under Operation Eyesore in that

town will have any devastating effect on employment.

Mr. Edward Lyons: When I spoke of an increase in unemployment, unlike the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) I was speaking not of Bradford alone but of all the people employed on the scheme in England, Wales and Scotland. I was not making a parochial speech about Bradford.

Mr. Page: I appreciate that but. taking the scheme as a whole, I do not think that at this stage cessation of the operation is likely to cause bad unemployment. Some people will be thrown out of work, but a great number of specialist contractors have been employed on this work and they will readily find other contracts of a similar nature. The cleaning of buildings is an example of what I have in mind.
We have had a large number of requests for an extension of the scheme from right hon. and hon. Members, local authorities and other bodies and organisations. Some have been concerned that projects may not be completed by the closing date, 30th June 1973. for various reasons such as strikes, bad weather, unforeseen delays in preparing a scheme, the overloading of certain types of specialist contractors and the general overloading of resources occasioned by the scale on which the scheme has grown against a tight timetable. I should be delighted if I could enable local authorities to complete, with the generous grant aid available, all the schemes for the improvement of their areas which they would like to carry out. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State recognises the force of the arguments that certain schemes are in hand, that it would be beneficial if they could be completed and that there are other schemes in contemplation. There will certainly be schemes started in good time and in good faith but which for some unfortunate or unforeseen reason will not be completed by the due date. In many areas there will also be further projects which local authorities would have wished to prepare, submit and carry out under the scheme but which could not be got ready in time.
The problem of an extension is essentially one of competing resources. The scheme has already grown to a size much greater than was originally envisaged and, even if it comes to an end this


June, projects to a value of about £35 million to £40 million will have been approved in England and Wales; the great bulk of them will have been carried out and will be eligible for grant. This is a sizeable programme and a substantial contribution both to visual improvement and to employment in the areas.
I apologise to both hon. Members for being unable tonight to give any definite statement about the continuation of the scheme. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is urgently considering whether resources can be found for any extension of the scheme. He is taking into account all the views which have been expressed to him—they have been many—and I know that he
1210-24
will take into account all that has been said in this debate.
We are perhaps victims of success. It has been an extremely successful scheme. It has run away with itself. We anticipated about £5 million a year but it has run up to £32 million and will run into £40 million before it is finished. We would like to invest in that success but it is a matter of competing resources. I can assure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend will take into account all these matters when he is considering whether the resources can be found for an extension of the scheme.

Question put and agreed to. Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.